> >>>> 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.

Plumpton won't even admit that with modern prosthetics for bovines you
can have your cow and eat it too.

Sure the cow must use a walker but at least the cow is alive.