View Single Post
  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
Rupert Rupert is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 8, 7:06*pm, wrote:
> "Animal rights activists" - actually, most are "passivists", doing
> nothing more than talk - commonly invoke "speciesism" to try to explain
> why human use of animals is wrong. *This is meaningless. *First of all,
> all species are "speciesist": *the members of all species pursue their
> interests, as individual entities and as members of their species, with
> no regard for the interests of other species.


Some nonhuman animals do show concern for the interests of members of
other species, and in any case there is no good reason why we should
use the behaviour of nonhuman animals as a moral guide.

> The "ar" passivists
> cannot give a coherent explanation of why "speciesism" is wrong, except
> by invoking it themselves. *Only humans are capable of conceiving of the
> interests of members of other species. *To say that we /must/ is itself
> "speciesist."
>


It's not. Any moral theory at all will restrict the set of individuals
who have moral obligations to the class of moral agents. And also,
just about any moral theory that anyone accepts requires us to give
*some* consideration to the interests of nonhuman animals.

> Secondly, the only way the passivists attempt to show that it's wrong is
> by comparison with other "isms" that they claim, without explanation,
> are inherently and "obviously" wrong: *racism, sexism, "heterosexism",
> etc. *This comparison is cynical and dishonest. *First, a discussion of
> *why* racism and sexism are (or might be) wrong quickly reveals that
> they comprise negative thoughts and actions against people of the same
> species who share the same morally relevant characteristics as those who
> are doing the discriminating. *A person's race or sex has no bearing on
> his ability to participate in the moral community of humanity.
>


There are plenty of intellectually disabled humans who cannot
participate in the moral comunnity of humanity to any greater degree
than nonhuman animals. These humans have the same morally relevant
characteristics as nonhuman animals. It is failing to give nonhuman
animals the same level of consideration that we think is due to these
humans that constitutes "speciesism".

> That leads to the second criticism of the passivists' comparison. *The
> member of a disadvantaged group was and is able to say, himself, that
> his treatment at the hands of the advantaged group's members is based on
> irrelevant considerations and is therefore wrong - he is able to
> *demonstrate* that he is and ought to be seen as the moral equal of
> those in the advantaged group.
>
> The analogy with racism and sexism and other wholly *human* "isms" is
> spurious.
>
> The passivists cannot make a case as to *why* the interests of members
> of other species ought to be given the same moral weight as the
> interests of members of our own species. *Forget about "marginal cases"
> - that doesn't achieve anything.


Equality of interests is the default starting position in ethics. If
you want to claim that your interests should be given more weight than
those of another group because your group is "special", the burden is
on you to explain why.