"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On Apr 12, 6:46*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/12/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 12, 5:53 am, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/11/2012 8:46 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 11, 8:37 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/11/2012 10:40 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 11, 8:51 am, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/10/2012 10:50 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 11, 2:16 am, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/10/2012 3:54 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 10, 3:50 pm, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2012 12:35 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 10:41 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/9/2012 12:04 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 6:42 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/9/2012 9:15 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 4:31 pm, George > * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2012 11:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 6:44 am, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2012 9:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 8, 7:06 pm, 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.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some nonhuman animals do show concern for the interests of members of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other species, and in any case there is no good reason why we should
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use the behaviour of nonhuman animals as a moral guide.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No other species show *moral* concern for interests of other species'
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The point of the post is that those who decry "speciesism" are relying
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on it to say that humans should not engage in it.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, they are not.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, they are. *You are requiring humans to behave a particular way due
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to their species. *That's "speciesism" (an ugly, contrived word, in fact
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not even a real word at all, as every spell-checker in existence
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrates by flagging it as not a word.)
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, they're not requiring that humans behave a particular way due to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their species. Saying that only moral agents have moral obligations is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not speciesism.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not what you're doing.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You tell us what your motive is.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand this.
>
> >>>>>>>> Yes, you do.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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."
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You obviously don't understand what speciesism is.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do understand full well what it is. *In fact, it's sophistry.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are plenty of intellectually disabled humans who cannot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> participate in the moral comunnity of humanity to
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "marginal cases" doesn't work. *It's useless.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've explained that to you before, too. *The argument from species
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normality defeats it, among other things.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The argument from species normality is flawed.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't. *It fully defeats the fake argument from marginal cases.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope; right.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> What exactly are the premises of the argument from species normality?
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Above you wrote, "The argument from species normality is flawed." *Do
> >>>>>>>>>> you mean to say you wrote that without knowing what the premises are?
> >>>>>>>>>> That seems very reckless and irresponsible.
>
> >>>>>>>>> I believe that one of the premises of the argument from species
> >>>>>>>>> normality is that the moral consideration an individual should get is
> >>>>>>>>> determined by what characteristics are typical for that individual's
> >>>>>>>>> species, and I believe that it is possible to construct thought-
> >>>>>>>>> experiments which show this premise to be problematic.
>
> >>>>>>>> Have a go at it.
>
> >>>>>>> Do you know the thought-experiment of the chimpanzee who can
> >>>>>>> understand advanced mathematics?
>
> >>>>>> Yes, of course. *It's the case of freak intelligence. *It fails, because
> >>>>>> it is not symmetric with a marginal human case. *The actuality of the
> >>>>>> chimp with freak intelligence entails the potentiality of moral
> >>>>>> considerability, but the non-actuality of normal human cognition in the
> >>>>>> marginal human does *not* entail the non-potentiality of being a moral
> >>>>>> agent. *We see this clearly with humans who are only temporarily
> >>>>>> incapacitated, or with children who mostly will develop to be moral agents.
>
> >>>>> What do you mean by "potentiality"?
>
> >>>> Because humans are the unique class who are moral agents, then without
> >>>> knowing anything else about a human being, you know at least that he has
> >>>> the potential to be or to become a moral actor. *Furthermore, even when
> >>>> the actuality is that a human is not a moral actor, that doesn't mean he
> >>>> isn't potentially one. *This is obviously true of normal human infants,
> >>>> people in a reversible coma, people under anesthesia, people who are
> >>>> asleep, and others.
>
> >>> Again: what do you *mean* by "potential"?
>
> >> Stop wasting time. *It's not a difficult word, and English is your
> >> native language.
>
> > It is not plausible that all humans have the potential to be moral
> > agents.
>
> /ex ante/, all humans do have that potential.
Why?
> /ex post/ we see that the
> actuality is some humans have diminished capacity that prevents them
> from attaining the normal human potential.
Quite.
|