On 4/12/2012 8:21 AM, Immortalist wrote:
> On Apr 8, 10:06 am, 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. 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."
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> That leads to the second criticism of the passivists' comparison. The
>> member of a disadvantaged group was and is able to say, himself, that
>> his treatment at the hands of the advantaged group's members is based on
>> irrelevant considerations and is therefore wrong - he is able to
>> *demonstrate* that he is and ought to be seen as the moral equal of
>> those in the advantaged group.
>>
>> The analogy with racism and sexism and other wholly *human* "isms" is
>> spurious.
>>
>> 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. Forget about "marginal cases"
>> - that doesn't achieve anything.
>
> Speciesism is the idea that being human is a good enough reason for
> human animals to have greater moral rights than non-human animals. It
> is a prejudice or bias in favour of the interests of members of one's
> own species and against those of members of other species.
That's the revolting neologism given as a name for that belief. It's
truly a disgusting word, so much so that every spell-checker I've seen
rejects it as a word.
> Pure speciesism carries the idea of human superiority to the extreme
> of saying that the most trivial human wish is more important that the
> vital needs of other species... for example a pure speciesist would
> argue that it's ok for animals to be cruelly treated and killed to
> provide fur decorations for human beings to wear.
>
> Supporters of speciesism say that there is a clear difference between
> humans and other species, and that this difference affects their moral
> status.
>
> They argue that human beings are more self-aware, and more able to
> choose their own course of action than other animals. This, they say,
> enables them to think and act morally, and so entitles them to a
> higher moral status.
>
> But the argument that there are morally relevant differences between
> human animals and non-human animals is not a speciesist argument,
> since the argument is about the particular characteristics that are
> being put forward to justify the different moral status of human and
> non-human animals.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/...eciesism.shtml
So, you tiresomely copied and pasted this boilerplate without adding any
commentary of your own. What the **** for?