On 4/12/2012 3:05 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 12, 6:42 pm, George > 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.

As it is an attribute that only attaches to one species, it's "speciesism".


>>>>> That's not speciesism.
>>
>>>> It's incoherent, is what it is.
>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> Already explained.
>>
>
> No.

Yes - 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.
>>
>
> 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.

It *is* "speciesist" - you keep forgetting the quotes, asshole - to
demand they do something based on a species-dependent trait.


>>>> 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.

That *is* 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.

Nope - right, again.