"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On 4/15/2012 6:35 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George > 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?
You've told us.
|