Argument from marginal cases

| An editor believes that this article should be deleted. The reason given is "Article is a problematic mess"
Please discuss this assassination attempt on this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.

|

[[RationalWiki:Articles+for+deletion/Argument+from+marginal+cases]]AFD

Cogito ergo sum
Logic and rhetoric

Key articles

* Logical fallacy
* Syllogism
* Argument

General logic

* Denying the antecedent
* Non sequitur
* Heuristic
* Pascal's wager
* کلمات قلمبه سلمبه
* Infinite regress

Bad logic

* Selection bias
* Exception that proves the rule
* Invincible authority
* Regression fallacy
* Sanctioning the devil
* Professor of nothing

v \- t \- e

| This page contains too many unsourced statements and needs to be improved.

* * *

Argument from marginal cases could use some help. Please research the article's assertions. Whatever is credible should be sourced, and what is not should be removed.

|

The argument from marginal cases is a philosophical argument within animal rights theory. The argument compares people with impaired or otherwise below-normal abilities to animals and concludes that they should be treated similarly, namely that the same protections and moral considerations should be extended to animals as are applied to these "marginal case" humans.[1]

## Contents

* 1 Formulation
* 2 Problems
* 3 Human rationality
* 4 References

## Formulation[edit]

The argument from marginal cases begins with the premise that some human beings are "marginal" in that they lack certain abilities or display these abilities to a lesser degree than others. Some human beings, for example, are intellectually disabled. However, we regularly and emphatically extend protection to these individuals, as we do to all other humans within our society.

The other key premise of the argument is that animals are relevantly similar (say, in their capacity to suffer) to such individuals. It follows that we ought to extend the same protection to animals as we extend to "marginal" human beings (at least insofar as suffering is concerned). Otherwise, we would be justified in subjecting the disabled to the same cruelties we visit upon animals.

Syllogistically:

P1: If no morally relevant difference between marginal human beings and some non-human animals exists, and some marginal human beings have moral status, then some non-human animals have moral status.

P2: No morally relevant difference exists between marginal human beings and some non-human animals.

C: Therefore, some non-human animals have moral status.

The argument is also popularly rendered in the form of a reductio ad absurdum argument, in which various properties -- capacity for rational thought, grasp of morality, self-awareness, etc. -- on which the moral status of humans is purported to be based (and which are lacking in animals) are 'disproven' by bringing up "marginal" humans who lack said properties and arguing that it'd be absurd to treat these humans with the same moral disregard as we do animals. It is then noted that any moral-status-awarding characteristic which is shared by all human beings will inevitably also be shared with some non-human animals.[2]

## Problems[edit]

The assumption that human rights are defined by ability, such as the ability to suffer, is not necessarily true, as human rights proponents define the rights instead as belonging to all humans and not to anything other than humans. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example, begins with the statement that "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world".[3]

There are legitimate questions about why human rights are so defined, and a variety of explanations ranging from the religious (God endowed humankind with its special status) to the genetic (we have stronger obligations to members of our own species than any other) to the social contract (we have a commitment to protect members of our society). Animals do not meet the first two of these criteria, while there is disagreement on the last, as some animal rights proponents argue that pets and farm animals are members of our society.

## Human rationality[edit]

Certainly the concept of human rights has a lot to do with humanity's capacity (as a species) for rationality, abstract thought, and empathy — even if we extend the same rights to members of our species who are lacking in these capacities.

If we were confronted with a species or entity with capacities for rationality similar to our own — for example, a newly discovered extraterrestrial species or, arguably, a highly advanced artificial intelligence — we would be faced with the dilemma of whether to accord them the same rights as humans. This is a common theme within science fiction.

None of the current species on Earth have the cognitive abilities to place us in this dilemma, but the argument from marginal cases subverts this by lowering the bar: extending human rights not only to species with the cognitive abilities of a typical human, but to species with cognitive abilities comparable to those of a human with severely reduced cognitive abilities.

Hence, instead of applying the reasonable principle of "if it behaves like a human, treat it like a human", which we could use in the hypothetical case of dealing with a new species, extraterrestrial, or AI, the argument from marginal cases applies the principle of "if it behaves like a human with impaired capacities, treat it like a human with impaired capacities". This could be applied not only to animals, but to even the simplest of AI computer programs, such as a chatterbot, chess computer, or a non-player character in any video game.

## References[edit]

1. ↑ Dombrowski, Daniel (1997). Babies and Beasts: The Argument from Marginal Cases. University of Illinois Press.
2. ↑ Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. New York: HarperCollins, 2002. Print.
3. ↑ The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations website.