"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On 4/17/2012 1:34 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 17, 9:25 pm, George > wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> Actually, it's the obvious truth.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> I don't know what you mean by "on every possible dimension".
Yes, you do.
|