On Apr 12, 5:53*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/11/2012 8:46 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 8:37 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/11/2012 10:40 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 11, 8:51 am, George > * *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?
>
> >>>> Yes, of course. *It's the case of freak intelligence. *It fails, because
> >>>> it is not symmetric with a marginal human case. *The actuality of the
> >>>> chimp with freak intelligence entails the potentiality of moral
> >>>> considerability, but the non-actuality of normal human cognition in the
> >>>> marginal human does *not* entail the non-potentiality of being a moral
> >>>> agent. *We see this clearly with humans who are only temporarily
> >>>> incapacitated, or with children who mostly will develop to be moral agents.
>
> >>> What do you mean by "potentiality"?
>
> >> Because humans are the unique class who are moral agents, then without
> >> knowing anything else about a human being, you know at least that he has
> >> the potential to be or to become a moral actor. *Furthermore, even when
> >> the actuality is that a human is not a moral actor, that doesn't mean he
> >> isn't potentially one. *This is obviously true of normal human infants,
> >> people in a reversible coma, people under anesthesia, people who are
> >> asleep, and others.
>
> > Again: what do you *mean* by "potential"?
>
> Stop wasting time. *It's not a difficult word, and English is your
> native language.
>

It is not plausible that all humans have the potential to be moral
agents.