On 4/12/2012 8:51 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 12, 6:04 am, George > 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.

No, it isn't. You're proposing a massive change - it's your burden to
prove that we ought to make it.

The burden is on you and the other radicals, and predictably - because
you're do-nothing passivists - you're shirking your burden.


>>> That's not speciesism.
>>
>> It's incoherent, is what it is.
>>
>
> Why?

Already explained.


>> Other species don't give any consideration to the interests of
>> individual members of different species.
>
> Sometimes they do but that is irrelevant.

They never give the sort of consideration you say humans must give, and
it's entirely relevant. It's what shows that you are being "speciesist"
yourself.


>> 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.

It's "speciesist" - you forgot the quotes, you **** - to say that humans
are obliged to behave in a particular way based on a species-dependent
attribute.


>>> 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.

Nope - you have an obligation to tell me what's wrong with it. You fail.