On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:56:27 -0700 (PDT), Rupert wrote:

Thank you for sharing your thoughts about how to proceed. I might
include a discussion of R. M. Hare's views, in particular his essay
"Why I am Only a Demi-Vegetarian". That might do something by way of
addressing your points.

You could consider the lives of everything. You could compare
the lives of broiler chickens of 6-8 weeks, with those of any wild
birds who live for that period of time or less. You could do the same
with battery hens and cage-free egg producers. If you do it open
mindedly I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that
no livestock animals' lives are or could be worth living, especially
comparing them with equivalent length lives of wildlife.

Your question about whether speciesism can be
"justified" in nonhuman animals strikes me as ill-posed.

Saying that only humans need worry about the "rights" of
other creatures and whether or not we are speciesist, seems
very speciesist to me. Even in trying to avoid it you still end up
doing it anyway.

There will
probably be some discussion of this point in the project as well.

Will you include that fact that if we didn't remain speciesist
we would eventually be overtaken by animals who are, or
haven't you thought it through to the point of accepting that
fact?

I do not currently have any preconceptions about what conclusion I
will arrive at.

My guess is that you want to support the elimination
objective.

It is probably best to let me finish my thesis and write up the first
chapter before we discuss the matter further.

That would depend on how open minded you want to be.
If you just want to support the elimination objective then you're
probably ready to go, but if you're actually going to consider
any alternatives to be ethically equivalent or superior then I
get the feeling you haven't even begun the first inch of real
thought in that direction so you should discuss it with people
who have a good bit before you attempt writing about it. Do
AW minded people write anything, or is it only elimination
minded people? Come to think of it, there is tons of propaganda
to support elimination, but damn little to support decent lives.

On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:27:56 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

dh@. wrote

See if you and some students can calculate how many more
animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would
if humans did not.

Given all the factors involved that is impossible to determine,

Close enough would be close enough.

besides, the
sheer number of animals who "experience life" is not important to anyone
with half a clue.

Maybe billions makes no difference than hundreds to people
with half a clue, but it does to people with more than half.

What matters to people of good faith

Good faith in what?

is that animals who are raised by humans are well treated,

Some of us can consider that as well as how many experience
decent lives of possitive value.

and that our actions do not cause undue harm to the environment.

Some people can consider all that stuff. Others of you
apparently can't. As always: If you think your lack of
consideration makes you somehow ethically superior, just
try explaining how. Instead of trying to sneak out if it
like you always do, why won't you just try explaining
how you think you're superior? I know you can't--none
of you ever could--but it sure would be fun to watch
you try.

On 20 Mar, 19:25, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Buxqi wrote:
On 18 Mar, 23:36, Rupert wrote:

When my thesis is finished I
plan to start working on a writing project in animal ethics, exploring
the question of whether speciesism can be justified.

Rudy Canoza recently made the interesting point that AR is
speciesist assuming that you would lock up a human who
harmed other humans but had a brain condition whereby he
was incapable of making moral judgements and therefore should
be considered a moral patient.

If you are willing to lock him up yet unwilling to lock a predator
animal up to prevent him from doing harm to non-human animals
then you are guilty of speciesm. Can you refute that premise?

My specific point that "ar" is speciesist is not really
based on what we require of human moral patients,
although that certainly reinforces my claim.

I think the example of moral patients is actually necessary
for your charge of speciesm to stick. Sure, you can
argue that if it is wrong for humans to do something than
it must also be wrong for any other species but asking a
lion not to hunt or an ant not to farm aphids or a cuckoo
not to steal eggs from other birds is a bit like asking
volcanos not to erupt or hurricanes to not damage anything.

*My point
is that "ar" demands a behavior of moral actors -
humans - based on the fact that humans are uniquely
viewed by most, at least until recently, as moral
actors. *It's sort of like requiring your seven-foot
tall neighbor to assist you in getting things down from
or up onto the top shelves of your kitchen cabinets
merely because he is tall.

The analogy does not convince me. You can only
expect an entity to act based on what it knows.
We have a conception of "right" and "wrong".
The crocodile doesn't know any better.

An interesting development is that some ethnologists or
ethno-biologists now think humans may not be the only
moral actors; there is some scant evidence that
chimpanzees may have some rudimentary moral sense. *If
that is the case, and if it eventually comes to pass
that chimps have a limited but identifiable capacity
for moral agency, then are we required to prevent them
from killing colubus monkeys and other animals?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On 20 Mar, 23:22, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 21, 2:35 am, Buxqi wrote:

On 18 Mar, 23:36, Rupert wrote:

When my thesis is finished I
plan to start working on a writing project in animal ethics, exploring
the question of whether speciesism can be justified.

Rudy Canoza recently made the interesting point that AR is
speciesist assuming that you would lock up a human who
harmed other humans but had a brain condition whereby he
was incapable of making moral judgements and therefore should
be considered a moral patient.

If you are willing to lock him up yet unwilling to lock a predator
animal up to prevent him from doing harm to non-human animals
then you are guilty of speciesm. Can you refute that premise?

Okay, here's what I'm going to do, in outline.

We're going to look at two hypothetical cases, involving a scientific
research project which harms individuals in order to attempt to gain
knowledge about Parkinson's disease. This is based on an example which
Peter Singer recently said was an example of "justifiable research".
We'll have two hypothetical cases, one involving doing the research on
cognitively impaired humans, the other on chimpanzees. I'll attempt to
do a survey of everything in the literature which tries to provide
some support for the view that it's morally permissible to do the
project on the chimpanzees but not the humans.

We'll also explore the objection that rejecting speciesism would have
untenable consequences, which has been made by Carl Cohen and is
frequently made on this newsgroup.

This particular point you are talking about at the moment, I'm not
currently convinced that it's worth addressing. We do confine nonhuman
animals to prevent them from doing harm. We do take the view that some
humans do not have legal responsibility for their actions. More needs
to be done before I see an argument here that needs some discussion.

Personally I think the argument is worth looking at, if only because
any position that is demonstratably guilty of the quality (eg
speciesm)
that it explicitly rejects must be viewed with a certain scepticism.

As to Jonathan Ball's points in his more recent post, well, we might
talk about them later. Sometime soon I'll write the first chapter,
giving a more precise version of the two hypothetical cases above and
stating the aims and scope of the project. In particular, I'll specify
which writers and arguments I'm going to examine. Then you can give me
feedback about whether the writers and arguments I've chosen are a
good selection.

On 20 Mar, 23:25, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 21, 7:57 am, dh@. wrote:





On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:56:27 -0700 (PDT), Rupert wrote:
Thank you for sharing your thoughts about how to proceed. I might
include a discussion of R. M. Hare's views, in particular his essay
"Why I am Only a Demi-Vegetarian". That might do something by way of
addressing your points.

* * You could consider the lives of everything. You could compare
the lives of broiler chickens of 6-8 weeks, with those of any wild
birds who live for that period of time or less. You could do the same
with battery hens and cage-free egg producers. If you do it open
mindedly I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that
no livestock animals' lives are or could be worth living, especially
comparing them with equivalent length lives of wildlife.

Your question about whether speciesism can be
"justified" in nonhuman animals strikes me as ill-posed.

* * Saying that only humans need worry about the "rights" of
other creatures and whether or not we are speciesist, seems
very speciesist to me. Even in trying to avoid it you still end up
doing it anyway.

There will
probably be some discussion of this point in the project as well.

* * Will you include that fact that if we didn't remain speciesist
we would eventually be overtaken by animals who are, or
haven't you thought it through to the point of accepting that
fact?

I do not currently have any preconceptions about what conclusion I
will arrive at.

* * My guess is that you want to support the elimination
objective.

It is probably best to let me finish my thesis and write up the first
chapter before we discuss the matter further.

* * That would depend on how open minded you want to be.
If you just want to support the elimination objective then you're
probably ready to go, but if you're actually going to consider
any alternatives to be ethically equivalent or superior then I
get the feeling you haven't even begun the first inch of real
thought in that direction so you should discuss it with people
who have a good bit before you attempt writing about it. Do
AW minded people write anything, or is it only elimination
minded people? Come to think of it, there is tons of propaganda
to support elimination, but damn little to support decent lives.

We've already mentioned R. M. Hare. There's also Carl Cohen. When I
have written the first chapter I will specify which writers and
arguments I'm going to examine and you can give me feedback on how
open-minded you feel I am being.

In my experience when people say things like
"you are so closed minded" what they really mean
is "Why can't you accept that I am right". I'm sure
your essay will be well thought out, addressing most
of the important points and provide a good discussion point.

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

dh@. wrote in message ...
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:27:56 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

dh@. wrote

See if you and some students can calculate how many more
animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would
if humans did not.

Given all the factors involved that is impossible to determine,

Close enough would be close enough.

No, impossible to even come close. In the zero-sum world that is nature, one
tonne of feed harvested and fed to a single steer might eliminate the food
resource support for 100,000 field mice, but who knows? The good thing is
that it doesn't matter. I don't care if millions of field mice never exist,
I don't care if steers never exist, nobody does. The only reason to care
about them is UTILITY. You're barking mad, plain and simple.

Thus the rest of your response, like everything you say, is irrelevant.

On Mar 20, 6:14*pm, Buxqi wrote:
On 20 Mar, 23:22, Rupert wrote:





On Mar 21, 2:35 am, Buxqi wrote:

On 18 Mar, 23:36, Rupert wrote:

When my thesis is finished I
plan to start working on a writing project in animal ethics, exploring
the question of whether speciesism can be justified.

Rudy Canoza recently made the interesting point that AR is
speciesist assuming that you would lock up a human who
harmed other humans but had a brain condition whereby he
was incapable of making moral judgements and therefore should
be considered a moral patient.

If you are willing to lock him up yet unwilling to lock a predator
animal up to prevent him from doing harm to non-human animals
then you are guilty of speciesm. Can you refute that premise?

Okay, here's what I'm going to do, in outline.

We're going to look at two hypothetical cases, involving a scientific
research project which harms individuals in order to attempt to gain
knowledge about Parkinson's disease. This is based on an example which
Peter Singer recently said was an example of "justifiable research".
We'll have two hypothetical cases, one involving doing the research on
cognitively impaired humans, the other on chimpanzees. I'll attempt to
do a survey of everything in the literature which tries to provide
some support for the view that it's morally permissible to do the
project on the chimpanzees but not the humans.

We'll also explore the objection that rejecting speciesism would have
untenable consequences, which has been made by Carl Cohen and is
frequently made on this newsgroup.

This particular point you are talking about at the moment, I'm not
currently convinced that it's worth addressing. We do confine nonhuman
animals to prevent them from doing harm. We do take the view that some
humans do not have legal responsibility for their actions. More needs
to be done before I see an argument here that needs some discussion.

Personally I think the argument is worth looking at, if only because
any position that is demonstratably guilty of the quality (eg
speciesm)
that it explicitly rejects must be viewed with a certain scepticism.


If I take the stance "I think an acceptable moral theory must be non-
speciesist" and you can then demonstrate to me that I hold moral views
which are speciesist, then you have shown that I am being inconsistent
and this is certainly a ground for saying that my position as it
stands is not satisfactory. In my writing project, I intend to explore
objections to the effect that nobody sincerely believes in and acts
accordance with a moral theory that is non-speciesist. Carl Cohen has
made objections along these lines, and objections along these lines
are frequently made on this newsgroup. Various facts can be cited in
support of arguments along this line, which are frequently discussed
on this newsgroup. To take just two examples, plant-based agriculture
causes serious harm, in various ways, to large numbers of nonhuman
animals, and it is estimated that electrical power stations in the
United States cause the death of approximately one trillion fish per
year. Gary Francione has attempted some discussion of the significance
of facts like these for his position, but it does not seem to be very
satisfactory. I intend to explore objections like these and try to
form a considered view about what they achieve, and where we should go
from there.

You seem to believe that the argument that you have outlined is
another example of an argument which could be plausibly held to show
that certain moral views accepted by those who identify themselves as
animal rights advocates are speciesist. For me to become convinced of
this I would need further elaboration. First of all, you speak of
being unwilling to lock up a predator animal in order to prevent that
animal from doing harm. Let us suppose that a lion had escaped from
the zoo and was roaming through a densely populated city. One reading
of what you are saying is that you are suggesting that many who
identify themselves as animal rights advocates would be unwilling to
take measures to prevent the lion from doing harm, which may involve
confining the lion (at least temporarily). If this it what you are
suggesting, I would be interested in seeing any citations you can
provide in support of this view. On the other hand, you may be
alluding to the fact that we are unwilling to intervene in predator-
prey relationships among nonhuman animals living free in the wild.
This is indeed an important point which will require some discussion.
It is mentioned by Carl Cohen, it is mentioned by Jonathan Ball
sometimes on this newsgroups, and it has received some discussion in
the literature. I will certainly do some discussion of that. On the
other hand, perhaps I am still confused about what your main point is
here. Maybe you could give some more specific real-world examples of
people being willing to confine a human who is a moral patient, but
not willing to confine a nonhuman animal who has the potential to do
harm, just to make clear which examples you had in mind.

You must realize the following:

(1) I am attempting to embark on this project without any
preconceptions about what conclusions I will arrive at
(2) It is indeed quite possible that I will come to the conclusion
that I have identified some serious deficiencies in certain views
widely accepted by those who identify themselves as animal rights
advocates. However, there is also some possibility that I will come to
a similar conclusion about those who identify themselves as
"welfarists". We will have to see.
(3) Dutch complains that DeGrazia's concept of "equal consideration"
is vague, and that no coherent definition of "speciesism" has been
offered except definitions which would imply that there is simply no
such thing as a non-speciesist ethical theory which anyone would find
acceptable. In response to this complaint I would like to attempt a
clearer statement of what a non-speciesist ethical theory is, and
investigate the question of whether it is possible to formulate a non-
speciesist ethical theory which anyone would find acceptable. If I
come to the conclusion that that is not possible, then it seems to me,
for reasons I'll elaborate on in my project, that this raises a puzzle
in the methodology of ethics which needs to be explored further, and I
will want to see if I can say anything about that.

On Mar 21, 6:44*am, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 20, 6:14*pm, Buxqi wrote:





On 20 Mar, 23:22, Rupert wrote:

On Mar 21, 2:35 am, Buxqi wrote:

On 18 Mar, 23:36, Rupert wrote:

When my thesis is finished I
plan to start working on a writing project in animal ethics, exploring
the question of whether speciesism can be justified.

Rudy Canoza recently made the interesting point that AR is
speciesist assuming that you would lock up a human who
harmed other humans but had a brain condition whereby he
was incapable of making moral judgements and therefore should
be considered a moral patient.

If you are willing to lock him up yet unwilling to lock a predator
animal up to prevent him from doing harm to non-human animals
then you are guilty of speciesm. Can you refute that premise?

Okay, here's what I'm going to do, in outline.

We're going to look at two hypothetical cases, involving a scientific
research project which harms individuals in order to attempt to gain
knowledge about Parkinson's disease. This is based on an example which
Peter Singer recently said was an example of "justifiable research".
We'll have two hypothetical cases, one involving doing the research on
cognitively impaired humans, the other on chimpanzees. I'll attempt to
do a survey of everything in the literature which tries to provide
some support for the view that it's morally permissible to do the
project on the chimpanzees but not the humans.

We'll also explore the objection that rejecting speciesism would have
untenable consequences, which has been made by Carl Cohen and is
frequently made on this newsgroup.

This particular point you are talking about at the moment, I'm not
currently convinced that it's worth addressing. We do confine nonhuman
animals to prevent them from doing harm. We do take the view that some
humans do not have legal responsibility for their actions. More needs
to be done before I see an argument here that needs some discussion.

Personally I think the argument is worth looking at, if only because
any position that is demonstratably guilty of the quality (eg
speciesm)
that it explicitly rejects must be viewed with a certain scepticism.

If I take the stance "I think an acceptable moral theory must be non-
speciesist" and you can then demonstrate to me that I hold moral views
which are speciesist, then you have shown that I am being inconsistent
and this is certainly a ground for saying that my position as it
stands is not satisfactory. In my writing project, I intend to explore
objections to the effect that nobody sincerely believes in and acts
accordance with a moral theory that is non-speciesist. Carl Cohen has
made objections along these lines, and objections along these lines
are frequently made on this newsgroup. Various facts can be cited in
support of arguments along this line, which are frequently discussed
on this newsgroup. To take just two examples, plant-based agriculture
causes serious harm, in various ways, to large numbers of nonhuman
animals, and it is estimated that electrical power stations in the
United States cause the death of approximately one trillion fish per
year. Gary Francione has attempted some discussion of the significance
of facts like these for his position, but it does not seem to be very
satisfactory. I intend to explore objections like these and try to
form a considered view about what they achieve, and where we should go
from there.

You seem to believe that the argument that you have outlined is
another example of an argument which could be plausibly held to show
that certain moral views accepted by those who identify themselves as
animal rights advocates are speciesist. For me to become convinced of
this I would need further elaboration. First of all, you speak of
being unwilling to lock up a predator animal in order to prevent that
animal from doing harm. Let us suppose that a lion had escaped from
the zoo and was roaming through a densely populated city. One reading
of what you are saying is that you are suggesting that many who
identify themselves as animal rights advocates would be unwilling to
take measures to prevent the lion from doing harm, which may involve
confining the lion (at least temporarily). If this it what you are
suggesting, I would be interested in seeing any citations you can
provide in support of this view. On the other hand, you may be
alluding to the fact that we are unwilling to intervene in predator-
prey relationships among nonhuman animals living free in the wild.
This is indeed an important point which will require some discussion.

Yes. That's the fact I was alluding to.

It is mentioned by Carl Cohen, it is mentioned by Jonathan Ball
sometimes on this newsgroups, and it has received some discussion in
the literature. I will certainly do some discussion of that. On the
other hand, perhaps I am still confused about what your main point is
here. Maybe you could give some more specific real-world examples of
people being willing to confine a human who is a moral patient, but
not willing to confine a nonhuman animal who has the potential to do
harm, just to make clear which examples you had in mind.

You must realize the following:

(1) I am attempting to embark on this project without any
preconceptions about what conclusions I will arrive at
(2) It is indeed quite possible that I will come to the conclusion
that I have identified some serious deficiencies in certain views
widely accepted by those who identify themselves as animal rights
advocates. However, there is also some possibility that I will come to
a similar conclusion about those who identify themselves as
"welfarists". We will have to see.
(3) Dutch complains that DeGrazia's concept of "equal consideration"
is vague, and that no coherent definition of "speciesism" has been
offered except definitions which would imply that there is simply no
such thing as a non-speciesist ethical theory which anyone would find
acceptable. In response to this complaint I would like to attempt a
clearer statement of what a non-speciesist ethical theory is, and
investigate the question of whether it is possible to formulate a non-
speciesist ethical theory which anyone would find acceptable. If I
come to the conclusion that that is not possible, then it seems to me,
for reasons I'll elaborate on in my project, that this raises a puzzle
in the methodology of ethics which needs to be explored further, and I
will want to see if I can say anything about that.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

dh@. wrote in message ...
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 04:56:04 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

dh@. wrote in message ...
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:27:56 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

dh@. wrote

See if you and some students can calculate how many more
animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would
if humans did not.

Given all the factors involved that is impossible to determine,

Close enough would be close enough.

No,

Yes, it sure would.

impossible to even come close. In the zero-sum world that is nature, one
tonne of feed harvested and fed to a single steer might eliminate the food
resource support for 100,000 field mice,

Now many farm mice does it support along with the steer?

Impossible to know, and nobody with any sense cares.


but who knows? The good thing is
that it doesn't matter. I don't care if millions of field mice never
exist,
I don't care if steers never exist, nobody does. The only reason to care
about them is UTILITY.

As I continually explain: You are so completely consumed by
your own selfishness that you are unable to consider the animals
themselves, and therefore unable to even try to consider which
practices are and are not cruel TO THEM.

That's a lie and a diversion, selfishness is not an issue. I don't care if
cattle are born or if the natural resources are left to support wildlife
like mice, or any combination of the two, except inasmuch as I want the
small amount of organic beef I occasionally consume. Causing cattle to be
born to consume grass and grain and water is not *good* or *better* in any
objective sense, apart from our desire to use those animals to produce meat
and other products. You're wasting your breath with this fool's argument.
The only allies you have are a couple of AR clods who share a common foe.

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 04:56:04 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

dh@. wrote in message ...
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:27:56 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

dh@. wrote

See if you and some students can calculate how many more
animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would
if humans did not.

Given all the factors involved that is impossible to determine,

Close enough would be close enough.

No,

Yes, it sure would.

impossible to even come close. In the zero-sum world that is nature, one
tonne of feed harvested and fed to a single steer might eliminate the food
resource support for 100,000 field mice,

Now many farm mice does it support along with the steer?

but who knows? The good thing is
that it doesn't matter. I don't care if millions of field mice never exist,
I don't care if steers never exist, nobody does. The only reason to care
about them is UTILITY.

As I continually explain: You are so completely consumed by
your own selfishness that you are unable to consider the animals
themselves, and therefore unable to even try to consider which
practices are and are not cruel TO THEM.

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:25:21 -0700 (PDT), Rupert wrote:

On Mar 21, 7:57 am, dh@. wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:56:27 -0700 (PDT), Rupert wrote:
Thank you for sharing your thoughts about how to proceed. I might
include a discussion of R. M. Hare's views, in particular his essay
"Why I am Only a Demi-Vegetarian". That might do something by way of
addressing your points.

You could consider the lives of everything. You could compare
the lives of broiler chickens of 6-8 weeks, with those of any wild
birds who live for that period of time or less. You could do the same
with battery hens and cage-free egg producers. If you do it open
mindedly I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that
no livestock animals' lives are or could be worth living, especially
comparing them with equivalent length lives of wildlife.

Your question about whether speciesism can be
"justified" in nonhuman animals strikes me as ill-posed.

Saying that only humans need worry about the "rights" of
other creatures and whether or not we are speciesist, seems
very speciesist to me. Even in trying to avoid it you still end up
doing it anyway.

There will
probably be some discussion of this point in the project as well.

Will you include that fact that if we didn't remain speciesist
we would eventually be overtaken by animals who are, or
haven't you thought it through to the point of accepting that
fact?

I do not currently have any preconceptions about what conclusion I
will arrive at.

My guess is that you want to support the elimination
objective.

It is probably best to let me finish my thesis and write up the first
chapter before we discuss the matter further.

That would depend on how open minded you want to be.
If you just want to support the elimination objective then you're
probably ready to go, but if you're actually going to consider
any alternatives to be ethically equivalent or superior then I
get the feeling you haven't even begun the first inch of real
thought in that direction so you should discuss it with people
who have a good bit before you attempt writing about it. Do
AW minded people write anything, or is it only elimination
minded people? Come to think of it, there is tons of propaganda
to support elimination, but damn little to support decent lives.

We've already mentioned R. M. Hare. There's also Carl Cohen.

Wow. Have there really been two other people who can
appreciate billions of livestock experiencing decent lives of
possitive value?

When I
have written the first chapter I will specify which writers and
arguments I'm going to examine and you can give me feedback on how
open-minded you feel I am being.

Please include what you consider to be significant quotes
if you're going to use some.

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:17:46 -0700 (PDT), Buxqi wrote:

On 20 Mar, 23:25, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 21, 7:57 am, dh@. wrote:





On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:56:27 -0700 (PDT), Rupert wrote:
Thank you for sharing your thoughts about how to proceed. I might
include a discussion of R. M. Hare's views, in particular his essay
"Why I am Only a Demi-Vegetarian". That might do something by way of
addressing your points.

* * You could consider the lives of everything. You could compare
the lives of broiler chickens of 6-8 weeks, with those of any wild
birds who live for that period of time or less. You could do the same
with battery hens and cage-free egg producers. If you do it open
mindedly I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that
no livestock animals' lives are or could be worth living, especially
comparing them with equivalent length lives of wildlife.

Your question about whether speciesism can be
"justified" in nonhuman animals strikes me as ill-posed.

* * Saying that only humans need worry about the "rights" of
other creatures and whether or not we are speciesist, seems
very speciesist to me. Even in trying to avoid it you still end up
doing it anyway.

There will
probably be some discussion of this point in the project as well.

* * Will you include that fact that if we didn't remain speciesist
we would eventually be overtaken by animals who are, or
haven't you thought it through to the point of accepting that
fact?

I do not currently have any preconceptions about what conclusion I
will arrive at.

* * My guess is that you want to support the elimination
objective.

It is probably best to let me finish my thesis and write up the first
chapter before we discuss the matter further.

* * That would depend on how open minded you want to be.
If you just want to support the elimination objective then you're
probably ready to go, but if you're actually going to consider
any alternatives to be ethically equivalent or superior then I
get the feeling you haven't even begun the first inch of real
thought in that direction so you should discuss it with people
who have a good bit before you attempt writing about it. Do
AW minded people write anything, or is it only elimination
minded people? Come to think of it, there is tons of propaganda
to support elimination, but damn little to support decent lives.

We've already mentioned R. M. Hare. There's also Carl Cohen. When I
have written the first chapter I will specify which writers and
arguments I'm going to examine and you can give me feedback on how
open-minded you feel I am being.

In my experience when people say things like
"you are so closed minded" what they really mean
is "Why can't you accept that I am right".

Probably because people say that to you when you're
wrong and they don't want to hurt your feelings too much
by saying it directly.

I'm sure your essay will be well thought out,

Why? "Well" for what?

addressing most
of the important points and provide a good discussion point.

May be.

On Mar 23, 1:13*pm, dh@. wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:25:21 -0700 (PDT), Rupert wrote:
On Mar 21, 7:57 am, dh@. wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:56:27 -0700 (PDT), Rupert wrote:
Thank you for sharing your thoughts about how to proceed. I might
include a discussion of R. M. Hare's views, in particular his essay
"Why I am Only a Demi-Vegetarian". That might do something by way of
addressing your points.

* * You could consider the lives of everything. You could compare
the lives of broiler chickens of 6-8 weeks, with those of any wild
birds who live for that period of time or less. You could do the same
with battery hens and cage-free egg producers. If you do it open
mindedly I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that
no livestock animals' lives are or could be worth living, especially
comparing them with equivalent length lives of wildlife.

Your question about whether speciesism can be
"justified" in nonhuman animals strikes me as ill-posed.

* * Saying that only humans need worry about the "rights" of
other creatures and whether or not we are speciesist, seems
very speciesist to me. Even in trying to avoid it you still end up
doing it anyway.

There will
probably be some discussion of this point in the project as well.

* * Will you include that fact that if we didn't remain speciesist
we would eventually be overtaken by animals who are, or
haven't you thought it through to the point of accepting that
fact?

I do not currently have any preconceptions about what conclusion I
will arrive at.

* * My guess is that you want to support the elimination
objective.

It is probably best to let me finish my thesis and write up the first
chapter before we discuss the matter further.

* * That would depend on how open minded you want to be.
If you just want to support the elimination objective then you're
probably ready to go, but if you're actually going to consider
any alternatives to be ethically equivalent or superior then I
get the feeling you haven't even begun the first inch of real
thought in that direction so you should discuss it with people
who have a good bit before you attempt writing about it. Do
AW minded people write anything, or is it only elimination
minded people? Come to think of it, there is tons of propaganda
to support elimination, but damn little to support decent lives.

We've already mentioned R. M. Hare. There's also Carl Cohen.

* * Wow. Have there really been two other people who can
appreciate billions of livestock experiencing decent lives of
possitive value?


Carl Cohen has not commented on the issue of whether it is a "good
thing" to bring animals into existence so that they can have lives of
"positive value". In his essay "Why I am Only a Demi-Vegetarian", R.
M. Hare takes a position similar to yours. You might like to have a
look. The essay appears in the anthology "Singer and his Critics". I
can find the original reference for you one of these days.

When I
have written the first chapter I will specify which writers and
arguments I'm going to examine and you can give me feedback on how
open-minded you feel I am being.

* * Please include what you consider to be significant quotes
if you're going to use some.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Mar 23, 6:15*pm, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 23, 1:13*pm, dh@. wrote:





On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:25:21 -0700 (PDT), Rupert wrote:
On Mar 21, 7:57 am, dh@. wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:56:27 -0700 (PDT), Rupert wrote:
Thank you for sharing your thoughts about how to proceed. I might
include a discussion of R. M. Hare's views, in particular his essay
"Why I am Only a Demi-Vegetarian". That might do something by way of
addressing your points.

* * You could consider the lives of everything. You could compare
the lives of broiler chickens of 6-8 weeks, with those of any wild
birds who live for that period of time or less. You could do the same
with battery hens and cage-free egg producers. If you do it open
mindedly I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that
no livestock animals' lives are or could be worth living, especially
comparing them with equivalent length lives of wildlife.

Your question about whether speciesism can be
"justified" in nonhuman animals strikes me as ill-posed.

* * Saying that only humans need worry about the "rights" of
other creatures and whether or not we are speciesist, seems
very speciesist to me. Even in trying to avoid it you still end up
doing it anyway.

There will
probably be some discussion of this point in the project as well.

* * Will you include that fact that if we didn't remain speciesist
we would eventually be overtaken by animals who are, or
haven't you thought it through to the point of accepting that
fact?

I do not currently have any preconceptions about what conclusion I
will arrive at.

* * My guess is that you want to support the elimination
objective.

It is probably best to let me finish my thesis and write up the first
chapter before we discuss the matter further.

* * That would depend on how open minded you want to be.
If you just want to support the elimination objective then you're
probably ready to go, but if you're actually going to consider
any alternatives to be ethically equivalent or superior then I
get the feeling you haven't even begun the first inch of real
thought in that direction so you should discuss it with people
who have a good bit before you attempt writing about it. Do
AW minded people write anything, or is it only elimination
minded people? Come to think of it, there is tons of propaganda
to support elimination, but damn little to support decent lives.

We've already mentioned R. M. Hare. There's also Carl Cohen.

* * Wow. Have there really been two other people who can
appreciate billions of livestock experiencing decent lives of
possitive value?

Carl Cohen has not commented on the issue of whether it is a "good
thing" to bring animals into existence so that they can have lives of
"positive value". In his essay "Why I am Only a Demi-Vegetarian", R.
M. Hare takes a position similar to yours. You might like to have a
look. The essay appears in the anthology "Singer and his Critics". I
can find the original reference for you one of these days.


You might find it profitable to look at Part IV of Derek Parfit's
"Reasons and Persons". That is an exploration of some issues about the
ethics of decisions which involve bringing individuals into existence
who would not otherwise have existed. Parfit explores theses issues
and discusses some paradoxes which he does not know how to solve. Also
of interest might be Appendix G to that book, "Whether Causing Someone
to Exist Can Benefit This Person". That might give you ammunition in
your debate with Jonathan Ball.

I would suggest that reading these parts of Parfit's book, and maybe
some of the literature which that part of the book has generated,
would help you to think more clearly about these issues and strengthen
your arguments for your views (assuming you still retain them, another
possibility is that exploring the literature might lead you to change
your views).

The objection I usually raise against your views is "Do you
distinguish between the human and nonhuman cases, and if so on what
grounds?" I have never really managed to get clear on what your answer
to this one is. I think you need to do more to clarify this issue.

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:

dh@. wrote in message ...
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:

dh@. wrote in message ...
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:

dh@. wrote

See if you and some students can calculate how many more
animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would
if humans did not.

Given all the factors involved that is impossible to determine,

Close enough would be close enough.

No,

Yes, it sure would.

impossible to even come close. In the zero-sum world that is nature, one
tonne of feed harvested and fed to a single steer might eliminate the food
resource support for 100,000 field mice,

Now many farm mice does it support along with the steer?

Impossible to know, and nobody with any sense cares.

Why do you pretend to care about field mice provided they are
not living among cattle, do you have any idea Goo?

but who knows? The good thing is
that it doesn't matter. I don't care if millions of field mice never
exist,
I don't care if steers never exist, nobody does. The only reason to care
about them is UTILITY.

As I continually explain: You are so completely consumed by