On Apr 12, 8:29*am, "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, 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. I don't know
> if you have ever see the comic Louis C.K. but he does a bit about his
> beliefs about what is right, like signing an organ donor card, he thinks
> that everyone should do that, to save lives. But he doesn't do it himself
> because he thinks its gross. He calls these beliefs "his believies", things
> that he believes in as part of his self-image but doesn't follow through on.
> He is describing you, your belief that equal consideration of interests is
> the default starting position is one of your "believies".

I don't see why my behaviour is inconsistent with equal consideration.