"Speciesism" - a disgusting neologism, a specious criticim
On 4/16/2012 11:16 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 16, 4:47 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/15/2012 11:18 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 16, 6:37 am, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/15/2012 8:50 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 16, 5:37 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 8:15 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 5:02 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 6:41 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 3:32 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 6:30 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 2:11 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 3:05 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 6:42 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 8:51 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 6:04 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2012 10:44 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 11, 7:15 pm, wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The very word itself, if we can hold our noses and call it a word, is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disgusting. Most spell-checkers reject it as a properly spelled English
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> word. It's a revolting neologism, coined by sophists.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the most obvious defects in the "ar" criticism of so-called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "speciesism" is that it rather than say what is substantially wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with, "ar" passivists instead commit a logical fallacy, what might be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called the Guilt by Association or "Bad Company" fallacy. At the very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outset of any "ar" condemnation of "speciesism", there is an immediate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempt to link it with racism and sexism, as if that's all that's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed to show that "speciesism" not only is morally wrong but deeply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evil. In fact, the very word itself, with its "ism" suffix, is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deliberately - I would say cynically - intended to suggest this linkage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no escaping the fact that this is a fallacy. If someone is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going to say that "speciesism" is wrong, he's going to have to say why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is wrong in its substance.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The comparison, however, is wrong in *its* substance. Not only is it a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical fallacy to condemn "speciesism" simply by comparing it to racism
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and sexism, but the comparison is false; it doesn't stand up to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scrutiny. First of all, putting aside any concern about "marginal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases", there *is* a general morally significant difference between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> humans and all other species, a difference that is wholly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> species-dependent. Humans are moral agents; no other animal species
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contains any moral agents. That is a morally significant difference -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so much so, that "ar" passivists say humans are *obliged* to alter their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view of animals as a result of it. In other words, "ar" passivists are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves "speciesist" in condemning "speciesism". The failure of race
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be a morally significant separator is too obvious to require much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comment. Whatever moral attribute people might want to use as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> criterion for discrimination, race does not logically include or exclude
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an individual. If admission to prestigious universities is to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> granted based on high grades and high standardized test scores, then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no valid reason to exclude someone of any given race if he has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficiently high scores. We don't need to invoke "marginal cases" to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see what's wrong with using race or sex as a discriminating criterion:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some, or perhaps even many, members of historically disadvantaged human
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> groups meet the objective criteria for inclusion.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The second way in which the comparison fails is that racial minorities
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and women are able to advance their own claims that they possess the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> traits that are supposed to be the criteria for inclusion. In fact, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very act of making their own claim is part of the demonstration that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they *do* possess those relevant traits. Other species' members cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do this - *none* of them.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For these reasons, "speciesism" fails as a criticism of the human use of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you think that moral agency is the crucial morally relevant factor,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then extend the same amount of consideration to all moral patients,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human or nonhuman.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've given no valid reason why we should.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've given no valid reason not to, and it's your job to do that.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't. You're proposing a massive change - it's your burden to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove that we ought to make it.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The burden is on you and the other radicals, and predictably - because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're do-nothing passivists - you're shirking your burden.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> My proposal above simply amounts to taking your suggestion that moral
>>>>>>>>>>>>> agency is the crucial factor seriously.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As it is an attribute that only attaches to one species, it's "speciesism".
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You don't know that it only attaches to one species
>>
>>>>>>>>>> We all know that it does.
>>
>>>>>>>>> No.
>>
>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not speciesism.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's incoherent, is what it is.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Already explained.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes - explained.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am not aware
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Liar.
>>
>>>>>>>>> You have no rational grounds for thinking that I am a liar.
>>
>>>>>>>> Of course I have.
>>
>>>>>>> No, you don't. Actually, you have quite rational grounds for thinking
>>>>>>> that I am telling the truth. Because I am saying that I am not aware
>>>>>>> of you having explained why it is incoherent to extend the same amount
>>>>>>> of moral consideration to all moral patients, human or nonhuman. And
>>>>>>> you have in fact never made any attempt to explain this, so it is
>>>>>>> quite reasonable to suppose that I would not be aware of your having
>>>>>>> done so. So it is quite rational for you to believe that I am telling
>>>>>>> the truth, and not lying.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Other species don't give any consideration to the interests of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual members of different species.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes they do but that is irrelevant.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They never give the sort of consideration you say humans must give, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's entirely relevant. It's what shows that you are being "speciesist"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nonhuman animals can't give the same sort of consideration that humans
>>>>>>>>>>>>> give, and it's not speciesist to refuse to ask them to do something
>>>>>>>>>>>>> beyond their cognitive capacities.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It *is* "speciesist" - you keep forgetting the quotes, asshole - to
>>>>>>>>>>>> demand they do something based on a species-dependent trait.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Saying that we *must*, due to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some intrinsic feature of our species, is "speciesist" (always put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quotes around "speciesism" and "speciesist" to indicate they're bullshit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made-up pseudo-words.)
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it's not. It's not speciesist to say that moral agents have moral
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obligations.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's "speciesist" - you forgot the quotes, you **** - to say that humans
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are obliged to behave in a particular way based on a species-dependent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attribute.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not what is being said.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That *is* what is being said.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously only moral agents can have moral obligations.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not what you're saying.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes. It is precisely what I am saying.
>>
>>>>>>>> No, it is not.
>>
>>>>>>> Actually, it is.
>>
>>>>>> It isn't.
>>
>>>>>>> I am the one who gets to decide what I am saying.
>>
>>>>>> I get to interpret what you're really saying. I'm right.
>>
>>>>> No, you don't get to interpret what I'm saying.
>>
>>>> I do. I really do.
>>
>>> You do get to make up stories about what I'm saying if
>>
>> That's not what I'm doing.
>
> Where do the stories come from, then?
There aren't any stories.
|