"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On Apr 12, 4:27*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.
That is quite obvious nonsense.
|