"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On Apr 16, 2:13*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.
Why do you think that?
|