Intelligentsia Meyer on Rats and Life

Hey 9GAG and sythe.org!


All you PETA adherents and softies alike: follow closely and think. If you are so intensely passionate about your cause consider a real argument and respond accordingly. I dare you to reply without a single derogatory insult, defaming remark or exclamation point. Best of luck.

I also encourage any individuals that are interested in both morals and debating to respond to this as well.

Right - Noun: That which is morally correct, just, or honorable: "the difference between right and wrong".

With that definition in mind, let us examine how rights are derived or in other words where they come from; especially those pertaining to the right to life. The question exactly is how we, as humans and organisms alike, come to have rights. Rights are reciprocally base. Reciprocal implies that to have said right the organism/human/rat/insect must be able to perform it as well. If the organism is not able to recognize the right and thus violate the right it loses said right.
The organism must be cognizant of what is in question to even be in consideration for its properties.

Morals are then derived from rights. Elaborate on that and come to your own conclusions if you from some reason disagree.

I observe mice such as those described in the above story for biological research purposes. I have observed their motor coordination skills, analyzed brain sections via cryostat and high resolution imagery, and considered the mean weight of the sampled brains relative to other mammals both aquatic and terrestrial. From this I able to conclude low, relative to other mammals and animate objects in general, cognition and cerebral capacity. If you want methods for said analysis I will send you some documents on it.

This low level "intelligence" so to speak disqualifies the 4 rats in question from consideration as elaborated above.

Furthermore, the method of death is a rapid one indeed. A strike from a board on a skull plate that is less than one millimeter thick ensures rapid unconsciousness and thus a lack of consciousness regarding both pain and cognition. The rats in question simply could not survive such a blow assuming it was accurately delivered.

The following are direct quotations from the documentation of the court’s findings.

“Leighton Tso said in a written statement to police that he saw the Defendant “squish” the mice with the small end of the plank but the Defendant did not show any aggression.”

“Ms. Owen said that the Defendant apologized to the class for his actions the next time they met.”


“The defendant also apologized for his actions and said “I totally admit now that I was wrong.”.”

“Additionally the defendant has no previous criminal history and no other arrests in the year this incident occurred.”
– Red and Black provided documentation of the legal proceedings.

This man killed a total of four rats. Your judgment of the situation is far from the realities of life. Millions of mice are killed yearly and likely thousands, if not more, daily. The death of four is not going to cause a significant impact on food chain or local ecosystem. We are part of the earth just as much as they are. We are predators by nature, at the food chain. You consider yourself so much a helper of the earth when you actually inhibit the natural progress. Let man go as much as nature. You likely adhere to Darwin's theory of evolution. Well my friend, "it’s all up to chance" as he would say. That right was forgone by the slim chance that a predator wished for its lack of existence and it is now unable. Accept it; it is a result of the pathway of chance.


I am now going to assume you read my reply in its entirety and for that I congratulate you. I look forward to your timely response.

Good day,


Intelligentsia Meyer.
Long lost cousin of both Erlen Meyer and Urban Meyer.
Go Dawgs.

 

I'm not even sure what your asking... Are you asking whether or not killing those rats was moral or immoral?

 

Did I misunderstand, or are you deriving right from something morally correct, and then deriving morals from rights? How does that work?

 

And what are you basing this assertion on? Are children without rights since they cannot recognize them? What about the mentally handicapped?

What is "natural progress"?

Darwin would never have made any such statement.

 

Rights are administered on a per species basis under the assumption that necessary conditions for rights are held by a species as a whole due to a mean average intelligence. Thus extending the rights humans enjoy to children and the handicapped. If they violate a certain right they are as culpable as the next and must forfeit certain rights, ie jailing, as a consequence.

Natural progress is the way the earth has proceeded for the entirety of its existence. We assume to know whats best for the earth and try and intervene to keep species around for the simple reason that some people enjoy them. However, before the time of humans species went in and out of existence constantly. We're too soft.

The Darwin quote is paraphrased from my class textbook on evolutionary biology. Take it up with them if you contend its validity.

 

Rights are derived from an organism's ability to exhibit reciprocation of a right. That is how one comes to possess a right. The debate of what should and should not be granted as a right is one for another time

Sure. Was it? Should he be prosecuted? Should he have his white mink fur coat doused with red paint?

 

I wouldn't call it moral or immoral. It's such a small thing to me. It doesn't matter.

 

Animals do not have "rights" per se. To illustrate the difference between a human right and the protection granted to an animal, let me say that we understand human beings as being ends in themselves. Thus, they cannot be violated. Animals are not ends in themselves and can be used for other means. However, there is a very sensitive and strict boundary, and any end they are used for must be justifiable. It is plausible that one could argue in the defence of the use of animals for meat (i.e. that it is justifiable). Animal abuse is not allowed because it is not a justifiable end.


Edit: Also, do not assert the definition of rights. That is a very difficult and lengthy subject and I'm sure a legal philosopher would do a much better job defining it than you would. No offense.