On Apr 18, 11:00*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/18/2012 10:44 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 5:12 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> 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?
>
> > You could try to defend the claim that that's a morally significant
> > "special tie" if you wished. My claim has only ever been that that
> > does indeed require some argument, that the burden of proof is on the
> > speciesist. And you would have to explain why the racist is not
> > entitled to claim special ties based on race.
>
> So within a species, it is permissible to give special consideration to
> the interests of my child ahead of the interests of an unrelated child
> because of kinship. *The other child has the same interest in food,
> shelter, safety, etc., but you say the default position is that I can
> give the interests of my child absolute priority over the interests of
> the other child because of kinship. *So...why not the kinship of race?
>
> The bullshit analogy between "speciesism" and racism, of course, does
> not hold, for reasons that I've given that you cannot refute. *First,
> members of another race generally have whatever morally relevant factor
> (MRF) one might use to say one is eligible for inclusion. *Second, those
> members are themselves capable of articulating their eligibility, and
> have done so. *Neither is the case with animals. *No non-human animal
> has either the actuality or the potential to be a moral agent.
>
> You're just ****ed. *The bullshit sophism of the "ar"/"al" mob is destroyed.

For a relevant comparison you would have to look at those humans who
lack moral agency, and ask whether the criteria of species membership
or race membership are relevant to determining their moral status.