On Apr 9, 4:31*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.)
>

No, they're not requiring that humans behave a particular way due to
their species. Saying that only moral agents have moral obligations is
not speciesism.

> >>>> 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.

The argument from species normality is flawed. There are many cogent
objections to it.