"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
"George Plimpton" > wrote
> On 4/9/2012 9:03 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> Why *should* humans extend equal moral consideration to non-human
>> animals? More to the point: why should they be *obliged* to do so?
>>
>> No reason at all.
>
> The problem, as has been amply demonstrated, is that "ar" takes as a
> basic axiomatic assumption the very thing they must demonstrate, and so
> it fails to demonstrate what it must. "ar" simply *assumes* that
> animals must be shown equal moral consideration, and then invalidly
> demands that opponents show why they shouldn't be. It's a failure.
> "ar" must demonstrate *why* animals must be shown equal moral
> consideration, and to date they've never been able to do so.
They never will, because its impossible.
|