View Single Post
  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
Immortalist Immortalist is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 12, 9:53*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/12/2012 9:14 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 12, 8:43 am, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/12/2012 8:21 AM, Immortalist wrote:

>
> >>> On Apr 8, 10:06 am, 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. *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."

>
> >>>> 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.

>
> >>>> That leads to the second criticism of the passivists' comparison. *The
> >>>> member of a disadvantaged group was and is able to say, himself, that
> >>>> his treatment at the hands of the advantaged group's members is based on
> >>>> irrelevant considerations and is therefore wrong - he is able to
> >>>> *demonstrate* that he is and ought to be seen as the moral equal of
> >>>> those in the advantaged group.

>
> >>>> The analogy with racism and sexism and other wholly *human* "isms" is
> >>>> spurious.

>
> >>>> The passivists cannot make a case as to *why* the interests of members
> >>>> of other species ought to be given the same moral weight as the
> >>>> interests of members of our own species. *Forget about "marginal cases"
> >>>> - that doesn't achieve anything.

>
> >>> Speciesism is the idea that being human is a good enough reason for
> >>> human animals to have greater moral rights than non-human animals. It
> >>> is a prejudice or bias in favour of the interests of members of one's
> >>> own species and against those of members of other species.

>
> >> That's the revolting neologism given as a name for that belief. *It's
> >> truly a disgusting word, so much so that every spell-checker I've seen
> >> rejects it as a word.

>
> > Some humans observe that there are a number of apparent differences
> > between themselves and other beings.

>
> Really! *How...insightful <chortle>.
>


Yes, kinda like Descartes argument "I think therefore I exist" except
here the argument is "there are differences between beings therefore
different beings should be treated differently."

> > This observation alone hardly
> > justifies any actions involving beings unless combined with other
> > proposals and justifications.

>
> Uhh...er...okay.
>
>
>
> > Your theory of the revoltingness doesn't do the thing either idiot.

>
> Do what thing, ****tard?
>


The 'do the thing' phrase in my response referred to any attempt to
justify behavior that would be identical to either treating different
beings differently or treating different beings the same. In either
case we would need additional reasons to justify the longstanding
traditions of the way beings have treated or are treated by other
beings. It will do no good to appeal to tradition or evolution as ways
to justify the preponderance of a range of and the prescription of any
treatments. This will not be allowed since it is analogous to claiming
the 2+2=4 not because of any theories of addition and sums but simply
because thats what 2+2 always equalled traditionally.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> Pure speciesism carries the idea of human superiority to the extreme
> >>> of saying that the most trivial human wish is more important that the
> >>> vital needs of other species... for example a pure speciesist would
> >>> argue that it's ok for animals to be cruelly treated and killed to
> >>> provide fur decorations for human beings to wear.

>
> >>> Supporters of speciesism say that there is a clear difference between
> >>> humans and other species, and that this difference affects their moral
> >>> status.

>
> >>> They argue that human beings are more self-aware, and more able to
> >>> choose their own course of action than other animals. This, they say,
> >>> enables them to think and act morally, and so entitles them to a
> >>> higher moral status.

>
> >>> But the argument that there are morally relevant differences between
> >>> human animals and non-human animals is not a speciesist argument,
> >>> since the argument is about the particular characteristics that are
> >>> being put forward to justify the different moral status of human and
> >>> non-human animals.

>
> >>>http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/...eciesism.shtml

>
> >> So, you tiresomely copied and pasted this boilerplate without adding any
> >> commentary of your own. *What the **** for?

>
> > You are proposing that only commentary is allowable, please give
> > reasons for your theory.

>
> No, I'm not proposing that only commentary is allowable, you tendentious
> pedantic ****wit. *I'm saying that only doing slavish copypasta isn't
> very interesting or helpful.


Are you requesting that the topic be changed to the interesting and
helpful or is this another red herring fallacious distration where an
irrelevant issue is introduced to take attention away from you weak
arguing abilities?