On 4/17/2012 2:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 12, 4:16 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/12/2012 5:43 AM, Zerkon wrote:
>>
>>> In article<qdydnaX0Os30yRvSnZ2dnUVZ5h2dn...@giganews. com>,
>>> says...
>>>> Other species don't give any consideration to the interests of
>>>> individual members of different species.
>>
>>> Not correct. Ants herd, 'milk' and protect aphids. It's a great
>>> assumption either way if this is defined as some aspect of "giving
>>> consideration" however the associated behaviors humans regard as such
>>> are still proved fact so a denial that a sense of consideration is
>>> present can not be arrived at logically.
>>
>> That's not the kind of consideration being prescribe by "ar" passivists.
>> They advocate that humans cause no harm to animals, or allow no harm
>> to happen, that they would not cause or allow to happen to a human. We
>> don't morally allow painful medical experimentation and testing to be
>> done on humans, so they say we shouldn't do it with animal subjects
>> either. No animals give that kind of consideration.
>>
>>> Symbiotic relationships permeate many if not all forms of life. For
>>> instance, no one can claim certainty that one of the hundreds of species
>>> of micro-organisms living inside each human that enable humans to live
>>> are not "giving consideration to the interests" of their host.
>>
>> That's not moral consideration.
>>
>>> Do you have a dog?
>>
>> Yes. I do give moral consideration to her interests, but not as much as
>> I give to the interests of my son. The "ar" passivists say I should
>> give the dog's interests equal consideration to those of my son, and no
>> more consideration to my son's than to any other person's or other
>> animals. But it doesn't work that way. If I arrive to pick my son up
>> from school and find the school is on fire and my son and another child
>> are in the classroom, and I have an opportunity to rescue one child
>> only, then I'm afraid little Billy's parents are going to be grieving
>> while I tuck my son safely in his bed that evening. That's just how it is.
>
> That's a straw man.

No, it isn't. You claim that I should give equal moral consideration to
the interests of all subject-of-a-life beings. It's bullshit, of
course, but that's your claim.