"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On Apr 18, 7:38*am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "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.
>
No, I'm not.
> > and one
> > involving a member of another species, you discriminate on the basis
> > of species.
>
> No, I don't.
Good to hear.
|