View Single Post
  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
George Plimpton George Plimpton is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - a disgusting neologism, a specious criticim

On 4/19/2012 4:27 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 18, 11:00 pm, George > 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.


No, I don't. The AMC is simply demolished. It doesn't work to do
anything; that's why the recitation of it is always done so rote.

You and the rest of your radical violence-prone mob have said that any
entity with a welfare deserves equal consideration of its interests to
any other entity, yet you're trying to waffle and show how I can give
some entities' interests higher priority. You're ****ing incoherent.

*YOU* are the one who doesn't understand this.