FoodBanter.com - View Single Post - "Speciesism"

Rupert

On Apr 12, 6:50*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/12/2012 9:00 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 12, 5:41 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/12/2012 7:27 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>
> >>> On 4/11/2012 11:29 PM, Dutch wrote:
> >>>> > *wrote in message
> ....
> >>>>> On Apr 12, 12:23 am, > *wrote:
> >>>>>> > *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
> >>>>>> owninterests, 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,
>
> >>> nor has Woopert...
>
> >> I should have elaborated in my original reply that it's a sick joke for
> >> Woopert to be saying that the "default position" in ethics is to give
> >> equal consideration to the interests of any suffering-capable entity.
> >> First of all, I don't believe Woopert has studied ethics rigorously at
> >> all, let alone to a degree that would permit him to say with such
> >> comical "authority" what the consensus position among ethicists is.
> >> Second, it is completely obvious, due to the amount of controversy
> >> surrounding it, that Singer's position is distinctly a minority view.
> >> With as much controversy over it as there clearly is, I find it very
> >> hard to believe it's the "default" or consensus view of ethics. *Rather,
> >> it's what Singer - and Woopert - would *want* to be the default view.
> >> That's why I maintain they are the ones with the burden of proof: *given
> >> that most ethicists (or so I intuitively believe) and the overwhelming
> >> majority of humans do *not* accept it as the default, the burden clearly
> >> is on them.
>
> >> Carl Cohen said something in "The Animal Rights Debate" that has stuck
> >> with me. *He wrote that when there is a huge majority holding a
> >> particular moral intuition, the overwhelming size of that majority gives
> >> it a particular weight that cannot simply be casually brushed away. *It
> >> doesn't mean it's necessarily a correct intuition, but there's a
> >> presumption. *Now, both the human concept of ethics, and ethics as a
> >> distinct branch of philosophy, have been around literally for millennia.
> >> * *With all that, the overwhelming majority of humans still consider it
> >> morally acceptable to give less weight to the interests of animals than
> >> to human interests, while at the same time most humans feel that *some*
> >> weight should be given to animals' interests, so it's not as if their
> >> moral intuition simply treats animals as holding no morally considerable
> >> interests at all. *However imperfectly people may have thought this
> >> through, they have given thought to it, and concluded that animals'
> >> interests deserve less moral consideration than humans'.
>
> >> The Humane Society of the US (HSUS) says that 39% of US households own
> >> at least one dog, and 33% of households own at least one cat
> >> (interestingly, there are about 8 million more owned cats in the US than
> >> owned dogs, so many more households have multiple cats than multiple
> >> dogs.)http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/...facts/pet_owne...
> >> * *A pet products professional association gives about the same number of
> >> owned cats and dogs, but says the percentage of households owning one or
> >> the other is higherhttp://www.americanpetproducts.org/press_industrytrends.asp*Most US
> >> households are comprised of more than one person, so it's very likely
> >> that more than 50% of Americans have a dog or a cat or both. *I think
> >> most people give a fair amount of consideration to the interests of
> >> their animals. *They spend over $50 billion a year on them, including
> >> almost $13.5 billion on medical care. *If people didn't give
> >> considerable weight to the interests of these animals, they wouldn't
> >> spend nearly as much.
>
> >> Woopert and his corrupt pal Singer are going to have to do a lot of work
> >> to convince people they ought to be providing the same amount of medical
> >> care and same quality of food to their animals as they provide for
> >> themselves.
>
> > That does not follow from the principle of equal consideration of
> > interests.
>
> It follows from the fact that your position is distinctly a minority
> position that has been implicitly reject by the vast majority of humanity..

No, it doesn't.