"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On 4/12/2012 3:09 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 12, 6:49 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/12/2012 8:58 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 12, 4:27 pm, George > 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 own
>>>>>>> interests, 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...
>>
>>>>> but if they think that way then they are different than every
>>>>> other person or animal that I am aware of. No, you're wrong here, in
>>>>> fact your description of your own moral calculations proves it. You have
>>>>> admitted that adjusting your lifestyle to avoid causing harm to animals
>>>>> is secondary to maintaining a suitable career and lifestyle for
>>>>> yourself, as it should be.
>>
>>>> Exactly. Woopert essentially has refused to make any alteration in his
>>>> life *whatever* to attempt to give equal consideration to the interests
>>>> of animals.
>>
>>> That is quite obvious nonsense.
>>
>> No, it's quite obviously true because *you* told us, explicitly. You
>> said that you can't - actually, won't - do all that you might do to
>> ensure you are giving the same consideration to animals' interests that
>> you give to humans'. You said you "needed" to do things to advance your
>> career that prevent you from determining which foods produce the least harm.
>
> I am giving the same consideration to animals' interests that I give
> to humans',
You aren't.
|