On 4/9/2012 9:15 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 9, 4:31 pm, George > 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.

That's not what you're doing.


>>>>>> 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.

No, it isn't. It fully defeats the fake argument from marginal cases.