On 4/10/2012 10:50 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2:16 am, George > wrote:
>> On 4/10/2012 3:54 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 10, 3:50 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/10/2012 12:35 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 9, 10:41 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/9/2012 12:04 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 6:42 pm, George > 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?
>>
>>>>>> You tell us what your motive is.
>>
>>>>> I don't understand this.
>>
>> Yes, you do.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>>>>> Nope; right.
>>
>>>>> What exactly are the premises of the argument from species normality?
>>
>>>> Above you wrote, "The argument from species normality is flawed." Do
>>>> you mean to say you wrote that without knowing what the premises are?
>>>> That seems very reckless and irresponsible.
>>
>>> I believe that one of the premises of the argument from species
>>> normality is that the moral consideration an individual should get is
>>> determined by what characteristics are typical for that individual's
>>> species, and I believe that it is possible to construct thought-
>>> experiments which show this premise to be problematic.
>>
>> Have a go at it.
>>
>
> Do you know the thought-experiment of the chimpanzee who can
> understand advanced mathematics?
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> Another way the bogus "marginal cases" argument is queered is by
>>>>>> pointing out that rather than elevate the moral consideration given to
>>>>>> animals, it would tend to lessen that given to the marginal cases.
>>
>>>>> It would probably do both.
>>
>>>> No.
>>
>>>>>> You just don't have a sound argument against "speciesism".
>>
>>>>> The burden of proof is on the *defender* of speciesism.
>>
>>>> The burden of proof is on the "ar" extremists who claim non-human
>>>> animals deserve equal moral consideration.
>>
>>> Wrong. If you think that you belong to a special group whose interests
>>> deserve more consideration than those of other groups, the burden is
>>> on you to explain why.
>>
>> Nope. As the overwhelming majority - 99% + - of people believe that it
>> is correct to give more consideration to the interests of members of
>> their species than to members of other species, you're going to have to
>> make a case for why they're wrong. The burden is on you. The
>> presumption that our interests should receive greater consideration is
>> the champion; your position is the challenger. The challenger must
>> defeat the champion, or the champion remains champion by default.
>> That's how it works.
>>
>
> No. There is a default presumption of equal consideration of interests
> in ethics.

Who says so? Peter Singer? That's a position he advocates polemically.
How does he show that it ought to be considered the default? Who
agrees with him? Not Bonnie Steinbock.


> If someone believes that they are a member of a special
> group whose interests are entitled to more consideration the burden is
> on them to establish that.
>
>> The burden is on you, and you can't meet it - you merely assume the very
>> thing you must demonstrate. You lose.
>