"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On Apr 16, 4:59*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.
When did I tell you that?
|