"Speciesism" - a disgusting neologism, a specious criticim
On 4/16/2012 11:44 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 16, 8:54 pm, George > wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Yes, there are.
No.
|