"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On 4/15/2012 8:22 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 16, 4:59 am, George > 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?
Several times over the last couple of years.
|