View Single Post
  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
Zerkon[_2_] Zerkon[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

In article >, notgenx32
@yahoo.com says...
> Only humans are capable of conceiving of the
> interests of members of other species. To say that we /must/ is itself
> "speciesist."
>
>


great assumption given this idea of 'only humans are capable of...' has
been specifically defeated more than once. Some examples being abstract
thought, tool making, altruistic behavior and grief.

Given ...

> the members of all species pursue their
> interests, as individual entities and as members of their species,


then the "Animal rights activists" are not in violation.

> 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.


Read: "The passivists cannot make a case that I will hear or accept".

For instance, the case was made thousands of years ago on the moral
weight, as you call it, of all life. You may not agree with any of this
but you also can not make it out to be a fringe element or unsupported
principle in human belief and hope to keep your position within reason.