"Speciesism" - a disgusting neologism, a specious criticim
On 4/18/2012 5:55 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 18, 1:29 am, George > wrote:
>> 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.
>
> It does not follow from this claim that you are not morally entitled
> to rescue your son in the circumstances you described. The principle
> of equal consideration is consistent with special ties.
Special ties like species membership, perhaps?
|