"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On Apr 9, 6:42*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.
>
Why not?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>> 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.
Wrong.
|