"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On Apr 16, 6:36*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.
Can you show me one occasion on which I did so?
|