View Single Post
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
George Plimpton George Plimpton is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - a disgusting neologism, a specious criticim

On 4/11/2012 10:44 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 11, 7:15 pm, wrote:
>> The very word itself, if we can hold our noses and call it a word, is
>> disgusting. Most spell-checkers reject it as a properly spelled English
>> word. It's a revolting neologism, coined by sophists.
>>
>> One of the most obvious defects in the "ar" criticism of so-called
>> "speciesism" is that it rather than say what is substantially wrong
>> with, "ar" passivists instead commit a logical fallacy, what might be
>> called the Guilt by Association or "Bad Company" fallacy. At the very
>> outset of any "ar" condemnation of "speciesism", there is an immediate
>> attempt to link it with racism and sexism, as if that's all that's
>> needed to show that "speciesism" not only is morally wrong but deeply
>> evil. In fact, the very word itself, with its "ism" suffix, is
>> deliberately - I would say cynically - intended to suggest this linkage.
>> There is no escaping the fact that this is a fallacy. If someone is
>> going to say that "speciesism" is wrong, he's going to have to say why
>> it is wrong in its substance.
>>
>> The comparison, however, is wrong in *its* substance. Not only is it a
>> logical fallacy to condemn "speciesism" simply by comparing it to racism
>> and sexism, but the comparison is false; it doesn't stand up to
>> scrutiny. First of all, putting aside any concern about "marginal
>> cases", there *is* a general morally significant difference between
>> humans and all other species, a difference that is wholly
>> species-dependent. Humans are moral agents; no other animal species
>> contains any moral agents. That is a morally significant difference -
>> so much so, that "ar" passivists say humans are *obliged* to alter their
>> view of animals as a result of it. In other words, "ar" passivists are
>> themselves "speciesist" in condemning "speciesism". The failure of race
>> to be a morally significant separator is too obvious to require much
>> comment. Whatever moral attribute people might want to use as a
>> criterion for discrimination, race does not logically include or exclude
>> an individual. If admission to prestigious universities is to be
>> granted based on high grades and high standardized test scores, then
>> there is no valid reason to exclude someone of any given race if he has
>> sufficiently high scores. We don't need to invoke "marginal cases" to
>> see what's wrong with using race or sex as a discriminating criterion:
>> some, or perhaps even many, members of historically disadvantaged human
>> groups meet the objective criteria for inclusion.
>>
>> The second way in which the comparison fails is that racial minorities
>> and women are able to advance their own claims that they possess the
>> traits that are supposed to be the criteria for inclusion. In fact, the
>> very act of making their own claim is part of the demonstration that
>> they *do* possess those relevant traits. Other species' members cannot
>> do this - *none* of them.
>>
>> For these reasons, "speciesism" fails as a criticism of the human use of
>> animals.

>
> If you think that moral agency is the crucial morally relevant factor,
> then extend the same amount of consideration to all moral patients,
> human or nonhuman.


You've given no valid reason why we should.


> That's not speciesism.


It's incoherent, is what it is.

Other species don't give any consideration to the interests of
individual members of different species. Saying that we *must*, due to
some intrinsic feature of our species, is "speciesist" (always put
quotes around "speciesism" and "speciesist" to indicate they're bullshit
made-up pseudo-words.)


> If you are treating some
> moral patients worse than others based on their species then that is
> speciesism.


Call it whatever wretched word you want; just don't say it's unethical,
because it isn't. Your claim about the <scoff> "default" position in
ethics is bullshit - rank stinking bullshit.