On 4/9/2012 5:05 AM, Zerkon wrote:
> In article<yt6dnYnAlbcGWBzSnZ2dnUVZ5jednZ2d@giganews. com>, 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.

It hasn't been defeated when it comes to moral agency. Only humans are
moral agents. In particular, only humans are capable of demonstrating
moral consideration for members of other species.


> 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.

"In violation" of what? What I said is that the "ar" criticism of
so-called "speciesism" is incoherent, in no small part because it relies
on it itself.


>
>> 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".

They haven't made a case. They take as an assumption the very thing
they must show, so they fail.