"Speciesism" - a disgusting neologism, a specious criticim
On Apr 20, 7:33*am, Rupert > wrote:
> On Apr 20, 2:02*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4/19/2012 1:53 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 19, 4:51 pm, George > *wrote:
> > >> 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.
>
> > > Yes, you do.
>
> > Nope - I don't.
>
> Much joy may this belief bring you.
>
> > >> 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.
|