On 4/15/2012 6:30 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 16, 2:11 am, George > wrote:
>> 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".
>>
>
> You don't know that it only attaches to one species

We all know that it does.


>>>>>>> That's not speciesism.
>>
>>>>>> It's incoherent, is what it is.
>>
>>>>> Why?
>>
>>>> Already explained.
>>
>>> No.
>>
>> Yes - explained.
>>
>
> I am not aware

Liar.


>>>>>> 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.
>>
>
> Obviously only moral agents can have moral obligations.

Not what you're saying.


> You don't understand what speciesism is.

I do.


>
>>>>>>> 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.
>