On 4/17/2012 11:10 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 17, 4:01 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/16/2012 11:47 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 16, 8:53 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/16/2012 11:13 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 16, 4:46 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 11:17 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 6:37 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 8:44 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 5:37 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 8:19 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 4:58 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 6:32 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 3:08 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 6:47 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 8:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 7:11 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2012 8:53 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the interests of other organisms are equally important from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the moral point of view,
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's the assertion you must prove, but have to date not even attempted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to prove.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The burden of proof is on someone who says that the interests of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular class of organisms deserve special consideration.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The burden of proof is on you limp challengers.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, it just degenerates into an exchange of contrary assertions
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about who has the burden of proof
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You have claimed not only that the burden of proof in terms of
>>>>>>>>>>>> justifying "speciesism" is on those who rely on it,
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I have claimed that, and I have also claimed that most ethicists
>>>>>>>>>>> agree on this point,
>>
>>>>>>>>>> You're full of shit on that point.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, my friend who is doing a PhD in metaethics doesn't think so,
>>
>>>>>>>> Your "ara" radical pal is a lying partisan.
>>
>>>>>>> I'm not talking about John Hadley. It's another guy, and he's not an
>>>>>>> ARA.
>>
>>>>>> He's still a radical lying partisan. You're trying to appeal to
>>>>>> authority, when the credentials of the so-called authority are not
>>>>>> established.
>>
>>>>> He is someone who is doing a PhD in metaethics, and he is not an ARA.
>>
>>>> That's nice. I still don't see that he would be qualified to say that
>>>> the "default position" of ethics is that equal consideration ought to be
>>>> given to entities' interests irrespective of species. That's a
>>>> *normative* ethical prescription.
>>
>>> Quite, but in the course of doing a PhD in metaethics one becomes
>>> quite knowledgeable about normative ethics as well. The different
>>> areas of moral philosophy are linked.
>>
>>>> It also is a highly controversial one, disputed by many people in the
>>>> field of ethics and elsewhere.
>>
>>> Yes, you're right that it is highly controversial, and I never
>>> suggested otherwise, but he confirmed my belief that the majority
>>> opinion of ethicists is that different amounts of consideration based
>>> on species is something that needs to be justified, the burden of
>>> proof is on the speciesist.
>>
>>>>> It is reasonable to suppose that he would be better-informed about the
>>>>> matter than you.
>>
>>>> Meta-ethics is not normative ethics.
>>
>>> I know that. My remark still stands.

Your remark is bullshit.


>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep piling up
>>>>>>>>>>>> the burdens of proof that you then shirk.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What do you want me to try to prove?
>>
>>>>>>>>>> All of it.
>>
>>>>>>>>> All of what?
>>
>>>>>>>> All of your claims.
>>
>>>>>>> Can you name a claim I've made that I haven't proved?
>>
>>>>>> Yes: that equal consideration is due animals' interests.
>>
>>>>> Okay. So you believe all human interests are entitled to equal
>>>>> consideration, yes? Or no?
>>
>>>> No - and neither do you.
>>
>>> What do you believe about humans, then?
>>
>> That we all establish hierarchies or circles.
>
> So you don't believe in any notion of human equality?

On every possible dimension? No, of course not - and neither do you.