On Apr 12, 5:49*am, Rupert > wrote:
> On Apr 11, 7:55*pm, Donn Messenheimer >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4/11/2012 10:40 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 11, 6:27 pm, Donn >
> > > 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.
>
> > I don't believe you.
>
> I'll see if I can find some references for you. I've asked a friend
> who is doing a PhD in metaethics.

He agrees with me that it is the majority view among ethicists.

He wasn't sure about references but he mentioned this paper:

http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/fa...son/singer.pdf