"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On 4/15/2012 8:19 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 16, 4:58 am, George > wrote:
>> On 4/15/2012 6:32 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/12/2012 3:08 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 12, 6:47 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 8:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 7:11 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2012 8:53 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>>>>>>> Why?
>>
>>>>>>> Because the interests of other organisms are equally important from
>>>>>>> the moral point of view,
>>
>>>>>> That's the assertion you must prove, but have to date not even attempted
>>>>>> to prove.
>>
>>>>> The burden of proof is on someone who says that the interests of a
>>>>> particular class of organisms deserve special consideration.
>>
>>>> The burden of proof is on you limp challengers.
>>
>>> Well, it just degenerates into an exchange of contrary assertions
>>> about who has the burden of proof
>>
>> You have claimed not only that the burden of proof in terms of
>> justifying "speciesism" is on those who rely on it,
>
> Yes, I have claimed that, and I have also claimed that most ethicists
> agree on this point,
You're full of shit on that point.
>> You keep piling up
>> the burdens of proof that you then shirk.
>
> What do you want me to try to prove?
All of it.
|