Post
by strawman » Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:34 pm
The Stone at New York Times today writes about the question of whether it would be ethical to eat peas, if we discovered that they communicate with each other.
Having no time to waste, rather than reading the article, I imagined what it said. And although I'm sure The Stone was much more philosophically legit, having earned the scholarly degree, while my imagination never got matriculated (still on the waiting list), it seems to me that this question of whether peas are persons has skipped right over the issue of whether people are persons.
Clearly, this ethics thing is a tricky business. Boocifer finds exploiting zombies 'distasteful', but better than exploiting people. He would presumably have no problem exploiting talking peas, even though, to my taste, peas are about as distasteful as it gets, even the uncommunicative ones. They are, after all vegetables.
But wait; are not some brain-damaged people also classified as vegetative? How are they different from zombies? They are certainly more like zombies than peas! Does it make a difference what one used to be, or what one soon will be in this calculus? Or do we assign personhood and rights based only on present characteristics and abilities?
Back in the day, people spoke of God-given rights. If that is no longer constitutionally permissible, then who will judge between me and the zombie and the peas?
Never judge anyone until you have biopsied their brain.
"Be kind, for everyone is fighting a hard battle."
Known Some Call Is Air Am