"Speciesism" - a disgusting neologism, a specious criticim
On Apr 17, 7:57*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.
|