"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
"Rupert" > wrote in message
...
> On Apr 17, 9:25 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> The consideration differences that exist in so-called "speciesism" are
>> not
>> actually based on species. One thought experiment to illustrate would be
>> to
>> imagine that a friendly extraterrestrial race of beings arrived on earth
>> that had superior intellectual capacities to humans. That species would
>> automatically be given full consideration equal to humans, and it would
>> not
>> be based on species, it would be based on the totality of the entire
>> constellation of capacities inherent *in* the species. The reason that
>> other
>> "isms" like racism and sexism are wrong is that they are based on
>> misconceptions about the capacities of the groups they discriminate
>> against.
>> The discrimination we have against sea sponges is not based on a
>> misconception.
>>
>> There's your proof, and explanation.
>
> But when confronted with two cases, one involving a member of your own
> species who lacks the usual capacities for your species
You're talking about abilities, not capacities.
> and one
> involving a member of another species, you discriminate on the basis
> of species.
No, I don't.
|