"Speciesism" - a disgusting neologism, a specious criticim
On Apr 17, 7:27*pm, "Mr.Smartypants" >
wrote:
> 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.
>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> Yes.
Indeed.
|