"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On Apr 9, 6:44*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/8/2012 9:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> No other species show *moral* concern for interests of other species'
> members.
>
> The point of the post is that those who decry "speciesism" are relying
> on it to say that humans should not engage in it.
>
No, they are not. To say that moral agents have moral duties towards
those who are not moral agents is not speciesist.
> >> 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.
>
> It is.
>
You obviously don't understand what speciesism is.
> >> 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
>
> "marginal cases" doesn't work. *It's useless.
>
Why not?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> 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.
>
> No.
|