"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On Apr 9, 10:54*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 10:06:34 -0700, 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.
>
> * * That's for sure. If humans were not speciesist we could no longer survive
> since rodents, bugs and germs would eventually wipe us out. Early humans also
> would not have been able to defend themselves from predators if they didn't care
> more for themselves than they do for the predators.
> . . .
>
> >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.
>
> * * Someone who honestly felt that way would be insane and a danger to society.
> They would feel no worse about hitting a child with their car than they would a
> snake, which would truly be insane from my pov.
That does not follow.
|