On Apr 11, 6:27*pm, Donn Messenheimer >
wrote:
> 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?

Peter Singer, and most other ethicists, whether they be in favour of
speciesism or no.

> *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.
>

Most ethicists would agree that equal consideration of interests is
the default starting position.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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.