On Apr 12, 6:42*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.
>

My proposal above simply amounts to taking your suggestion that moral
agency is the crucial factor seriously.

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

No.

> >> 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.
>

Nonhuman animals can't give the same sort of consideration that humans
give, and it's not speciesist to refuse to ask them to do something
beyond their cognitive capacities.

> >> 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.
>

That's not what is being said.

> >>> 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.

Wrong.