On 4/8/2012 11:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 9, 6:44 am, George > 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.

Yes, they are. You are requiring humans to behave a particular way due
to their species. That's "speciesism" (an ugly, contrived word, in fact
not even a real word at all, as every spell-checker in existence
demonstrates by flagging it as not a word.)


>>>> 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.

I do understand full well what it is. In fact, it's sophistry.


>>>> 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?

I've explained that to you before, too. The argument from species
normality defeats it, among other things.