By this reasoning, kicking your baby to death doesn't qualify as aggression. Apart from the fact that I don't think Hoppe's reasoning stands up to scrutiny, I also think you may have misunderstood what he is saying.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The difference with the baby is one of degree instead of one of kind. The baby, as a human, is a rational being. It is only to a very small degree that it is rational. Likewise, children and teenagers are less rational than 30 year old adults, but are still rational beings (a difference of degree). Animals, on the other hand, are not rational beings, with their difference being one of kind.
A baby is less rational a being than an adult chimpansee. Apparently, rationality as a trait has nothing to do with your argument: you are simply defining what you should logically argue.
You misunderstand me. There is no identifiable point in someone's life in which they change into a rational person from a non-rational being. They are simply a person from conception. What I mean by saying children are rational to a lesser degree than adults is that their ability to formulate arguments is still in development and not operating to the fullest extent possible. The actual act of arguing is not necessary to qualifing as a person, just the capability to. Babies have the capacity(potential), just not the actual ability, making them rational beings, even though they are at an extremely early stage of development. Chimps, on the other hand, don't have the capacity or the ability, making them non-persons and not at all rational.
"They are simply a person from conception" sounds like a definition to me, nothing to to with the capability to argue. "The actual act of arguing is not necessary to qualify as a person, just the capability to": babies don't have the capability, just "the potential" to argue at some unspecified point in the future, which is enough to make them rational beings and therefore persons? So the sperm and ovum, even before having fused, are also a rational being, having the "potential" to argue at some point in the future? That would not only make abortion a violent act, but also not having sex.
Also, babies born with a mental handicap, not having "the potential" to grow into a rational being, can be kicked to death without further ado? Or a they "persons" by some other convenient definition? "May have had the potential of eventualy becoming a rational being"?
You would also have to prove that chimpansees are not rational beings even though they show rational behaviour and even engage in non-violent (and non-verbal) arguing in stead of just defining them as non-rational beings.
I think this line of reasoning is a dead end when it comes to investigating animal rights.