The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Apr 27, 8:32*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/26/2012 10:25 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 26, 5:53 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/26/2012 6:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 26, 5:59 am, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 7/26/2007 5:02 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Jul 26, 6:06 pm, > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 6, 5:41 pm, > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> That's not the meaning of "discrimination" we're talking about here.
> >>>>>>>>> We're saying that, if you make different moral judgements about two
> >>>>>>>>> different cases, you're under an obligation to specify a morally
> >>>>>>>>> relevant difference between them.
> >>>>>>>> How many times do I have to repeat this? The chief morally relevant
> >>>>>>>> differences between humans and non-humans, in fact among all organisms, are
> >>>>>>>> intelligence and sentience.
>
> >>>>>>> But this doesn't distinguish *all* humans from *all* nonhumans. How
> >>>>>>> many times do I have to repeat *that*?
>
> >>>>>> You never even have to think it again, it has been dispelled by an
> >>>>>> alternative way of approaching the whole subject of moral beings.
> >>>>>> "THE MORAL STATUS OF BEINGS WHO ARE NOT PERSONS;
> >>>>>> A CASUISTIC ARGUMENT "
>
> >>>>> Yes, I know you're impressed by that essay. I'm not impressed by that
> >>>>> part of it, as it stands. I don't find the explanation of the crucial
> >>>>> notion of "capacity" to be anything approaching adequate.
>
> >>>> Why not? *Just because it doesn't fit with what you want to believe?
>
> >>>> You /could/ learn what it is, but you're too lazy and self-absorbed for
> >>>> it. *Here's a start:
>
> >>>> * * * * "Thus, asked whether she can multiply two digit numbers, a child
> >>>> * * * * who at present can only multiply one-digit numbers may say that
> >>>> * * * * she cannot do so at present (ability), but that she is sure she
> >>>> * * * * could learn to do so if properly instructed (capability)."
>
> >>> Where's this from? Is this from Jon Wetlesen's essay?
>
> >> What the **** difference does it make where it's from, you ****ing
> >> retard? *It illustrates the difference between ability and capability.
> >> You may no longer try to be evasive on that issue.
>
> > It illustrates *one* possible distinction that might be made between
> > abilty and capability, which is probably different to what Wetlesen
> > had in mind because Wetlesen explicitly denied that capability meant
> > the same thing as potential ability.
>
> >>>>>> The class of beings called "moral persons" satisfies this objection. No
> >>>>>> non-human possesses the inherent capacity to be a moral agent or to
> >>>>>> display the other markers for advanced intelligence and sentience. You
> >>>>>> have tried to hang your hat on a supposed lack of clarity of the word
> >>>>>> "capacity",
>
> >>>>> Pretty much no attempt has been made to explain this crucial concept.
|