Even if this were correct, it doesn’t matter, because we’re not discussing whether animals and doors can consent or not, but rather why it’s morally right to kill animals but not to have intercourse with them.
The problem is that sameness in one respect does not imply sameness in the respects that matter. A calculator and a human are identical in their capacity to photosynthesize (neither can), but that tells us nothing about whether they deserve rights, can think, or have interests.
Likewise, a door and an animal are both incapable of consent, but for entirely different reasons. A door lacks consciousness, desires, experiences, and interests. An animal has experiences and interests, even if it cannot express consent in a human-like way.
We’re also both breathing oxygen but that’s irrelevant to the question whether we can press the reply button or not.
Can’t believe I fell for an obvious troll, but kudos to you.
since you concede that neither animals nor inanimate objects are capable of consent, surely you must know that the morality of an action regarding either cannot hinge on consent.
Yes, it’s still a complete non-argument even if we consider you’re serious. Not even worth discussing.
Doors aren’t animals, Victoria. The same way you’re not a door either. Maybe a doorknob?
you’re not me, but in our ability to hit “reply” we are identical. doors aren’t animals, but in their capacity to consent, they are identical.
Even if this were correct, it doesn’t matter, because we’re not discussing whether animals and doors can consent or not, but rather why it’s morally right to kill animals but not to have intercourse with them.
The problem is that sameness in one respect does not imply sameness in the respects that matter. A calculator and a human are identical in their capacity to photosynthesize (neither can), but that tells us nothing about whether they deserve rights, can think, or have interests.
Likewise, a door and an animal are both incapable of consent, but for entirely different reasons. A door lacks consciousness, desires, experiences, and interests. An animal has experiences and interests, even if it cannot express consent in a human-like way.
We’re also both breathing oxygen but that’s irrelevant to the question whether we can press the reply button or not.
Can’t believe I fell for an obvious troll, but kudos to you.
the only respect that matters, in this case, is the ability to consent.
since you concede that neither animals nor inanimate objects are capable of consent, surely you must know that the morality of an action regarding either cannot hinge on consent.
calling me names doesn’t change whether what i wrote is true.