On 4/11/2012 11:29 PM, Dutch wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Apr 12, 12:23 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>>
>>> > Most ethicists would agree that equal consideration of interests is
>>> > the default starting position.
>>>
>>> For whom? My default starting position for consideration is my own
>>> interests, followed by my immediate family including my pets, my
>>> community,
>>> my country, mankind, higher level animals, rare plant species, lower
>>> level
>>> animals, the planet, and the economy is implied in there somewhere.
>>>
>>> The default starting position for every organism in existence is its own
>>> interests, that is the way the world works.
>>
>> That is something that requires defence from the moral point of view.
>
> You mean like you defended your assertion, by claiming that most
> ethicists agree with you? Well I can't honestly say I've ever met an
> ethicist,

nor has Woopert...


> but if they think that way then they are different than every
> other person or animal that I am aware of. No, you're wrong here, in
> fact your description of your own moral calculations proves it. You have
> admitted that adjusting your lifestyle to avoid causing harm to animals
> is secondary to maintaining a suitable career and lifestyle for
> yourself, as it should be.

Exactly. Woopert essentially has refused to make any alteration in his
life *whatever* to attempt to give equal consideration to the interests
of animals. I have long maintained that this is a fundamental flaw in
the belief system itself, rather than a flaw in its adherents, if not
*one* of them can be bothered to try to live fully up to its moral
prescriptions.


> I don't know if you have ever see the comic
> Louis C.K. but he does a bit about his beliefs about what is right, like
> signing an organ donor card, he thinks that everyone should do that, to
> save lives. But he doesn't do it himself because he thinks its gross. He
> calls these beliefs "his believies", things that he believes in as part
> of his self-image but doesn't follow through on.

That is brilliant! I'll have to see if I can find anything on it in
YouTube.

Years ago I read of something called The Garbage Project. It's a
long-running academic study at one of the Arizona universities - I can't
recall if it's U of A in Tucson or Arizona State U in Tempe - in which
they analyze human refuse, including human behavior with respect to the
generation and handling of it. One of the things they found is that
with most people, they claim that they recycle far more than they really
do. In surveys, people would report that they recycled heavily while
their neighbors didn't recycle much at all, but what the surveyors found
is that people recycle about as much as what they say their neighbors
do, on average. I think a lot of analysis of virtue would turn up
similar results. That, among other reasons, is why I don't believe
****wit when he says he only buys "cage-free" eggs.


> He is describing you,
> your belief that equal consideration of interests is the default
> starting position is one of your "believies".

Right.