View Single Post
  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
Rupert Rupert is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - a disgusting neologism, a specious criticim

On Apr 12, 6:04*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/11/2012 10:44 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 7:15 pm, wrote:
> >> The very word itself, if we can hold our noses and call it a word, is
> >> disgusting. *Most spell-checkers reject it as a properly spelled English
> >> word. *It's a revolting neologism, coined by sophists.

>
> >> One of the most obvious defects in the "ar" criticism of so-called
> >> "speciesism" is that it rather than say what is substantially wrong
> >> with, "ar" passivists instead commit a logical fallacy, what might be
> >> called the Guilt by Association or "Bad Company" fallacy. *At the very
> >> outset of any "ar" condemnation of "speciesism", there is an immediate
> >> attempt to link it with racism and sexism, as if that's all that's
> >> needed to show that "speciesism" not only is morally wrong but deeply
> >> evil. *In fact, the very word itself, with its "ism" suffix, is
> >> deliberately - I would say cynically - intended to suggest this linkage.
> >> * *There is no escaping the fact that this is a fallacy. *If someone is
> >> going to say that "speciesism" is wrong, he's going to have to say why
> >> it is wrong in its substance.

>
> >> The comparison, however, is wrong in *its* substance. *Not only is it a
> >> logical fallacy to condemn "speciesism" simply by comparing it to racism
> >> and sexism, but the comparison is false; it doesn't stand up to
> >> scrutiny. *First of all, putting aside any concern about "marginal
> >> cases", there *is* a general morally significant difference between
> >> humans and all other species, a difference that is wholly
> >> species-dependent. *Humans are moral agents; no other animal species
> >> contains any moral agents. *That is a morally significant difference -
> >> so much so, that "ar" passivists say humans are *obliged* to alter their
> >> view of animals as a result of it. *In other words, "ar" passivists are
> >> themselves "speciesist" in condemning "speciesism". *The failure of race
> >> to be a morally significant separator is too obvious to require much
> >> comment. *Whatever moral attribute people might want to use as a
> >> criterion for discrimination, race does not logically include or exclude
> >> an individual. *If admission to prestigious universities is to be
> >> granted based on high grades and high standardized test scores, then
> >> there is no valid reason to exclude someone of any given race if he has
> >> sufficiently high scores. *We don't need to invoke "marginal cases" to
> >> see what's wrong with using race or sex as a discriminating criterion:
> >> some, or perhaps even many, members of historically disadvantaged human
> >> groups meet the objective criteria for inclusion.

>
> >> The second way in which the comparison fails is that racial minorities
> >> and women are able to advance their own claims that they possess the
> >> traits that are supposed to be the criteria for inclusion. *In fact, the
> >> very act of making their own claim is part of the demonstration that
> >> they *do* possess those relevant traits. *Other species' members cannot
> >> do this - *none* of them.

>
> >> For these reasons, "speciesism" fails as a criticism of the human use of
> >> animals.

>
> > If you think that moral agency is the crucial morally relevant factor,
> > then extend the same amount of consideration to all moral patients,
> > human or nonhuman.

>
> You've given no valid reason why we should.
>


You've given no valid reason not to, and it's your job to do that. If
you want to say that a certain factor is morally relevant, it's your
job to defend that position.

> > That's not speciesism.

>
> It's incoherent, is what it is.
>


Why?

> Other species don't give any consideration to the interests of
> individual members of different species.


Sometimes they do but that is irrelevant.

> Saying that we *must*, due to
> some intrinsic feature of our species, is "speciesist" (always put
> quotes around "speciesism" and "speciesist" to indicate they're bullshit
> made-up pseudo-words.)
>


No, it's not. It's not speciesist to say that moral agents have moral
obligations.

> > If you are treating some
> > moral patients worse than others based on their species then that is
> > speciesism.

>
> Call it whatever wretched word you want; just don't say it's unethical,
> because it isn't. *Your claim about the <scoff> "default" position in
> ethics is bullshit - rank stinking bullshit.


If you want to discriminate on the basis of species you have an
obligation to say why it's justified.