Comment 84 by ccw95005

Sure. But is all suffering morally bad? How about the stabbing of a man who's trying to hurt your children? Is that morally wrong? How about murdering Hitler? Would that have been wrong? How about shooting a dog that's getting ready to attack you?

Clearly there are degrees of badness. The point is, once the premise that we all can agree on is established, it’s not possible to rationally defend a course of action that causes more suffering than another. Morality is tricky because oftentimes it’s hard to predict outcomes, not because there aren’t any right answers. The answers exist and can be discovered.

Once again, there are people who do believe that animals have the same rights as humans - that killing a deer is just as bad as killing a human. How do you prove logically that they are wrong and you are right?

If some types of animal have capacity for suffering and well-being that are comparable to humans, neuroscience can give evidence for that.

(You disagree with their position, yet you think it’s as valid as your own position. That I find a bit strange. If you believe there’s no true answer; that means no evidence can make any difference to you, and that means your position is arbitrary.)