On 4/8/2012 9:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 8, 7:06 pm, wrote:
>> "Animal rights activists" - actually, most are "passivists", doing
>> nothing more than talk - commonly invoke "speciesism" to try to explain
>> why human use of animals is wrong. This is meaningless. First of all,
>> all species are "speciesist": the members of all species pursue their
>> interests, as individual entities and as members of their species, with
>> no regard for the interests of other species.
>
> Some nonhuman animals do show concern for the interests of members of
> other species,

Bullshit.


> and in any case there is no good reason why we should
> use the behaviour of nonhuman animals as a moral guide.

So, you *are* a speciesist, just as I said. You hold humans to a
different moral standard. You view humans as morally superior to other
species, based solely on a trait they uniquely possess.

>> The "ar" passivists
>> cannot give a coherent explanation of why "speciesism" is wrong, except
>> by invoking it themselves. Only humans are capable of conceiving of the
>> interests of members of other species. To say that we /must/ is itself
>> "speciesist."
>>
>
> It's not.

It is, of course.

>> Secondly, the only way the passivists attempt to show that it's wrong is
>> by comparison with other "isms" that they claim, without explanation,
>> are inherently and "obviously" wrong: racism, sexism, "heterosexism",
>> etc. This comparison is cynical and dishonest. First, a discussion of
>> *why* racism and sexism are (or might be) wrong quickly reveals that
>> they comprise negative thoughts and actions against people of the same
>> species who share the same morally relevant characteristics as those who
>> are doing the discriminating. A person's race or sex has no bearing on
>> his ability to participate in the moral community of humanity.
>>
>
> There are plenty of intellectually disabled humans who cannot
> participate in the moral comunnity of humanity to any greater degree
> than nonhuman animals.

But they are of the *kind* of entity that *uniquely* can participate in
a moral community. No non-human animals can. The overwhelming majority
of humans can.

As has been shown countless times, your "marginal cases" garbage fails.
It *never* leads to the extension of greater moral consideration to dumb
non-human animals; all it *ever* leads to is a diminution of
consideration for the human marginal cases.

You and Singer want to perform horrific medical experiments on them.


>> That leads to the second criticism of the passivists' comparison. The
>> member of a disadvantaged group was and is able to say, himself, that
>> his treatment at the hands of the advantaged group's members is based on
>> irrelevant considerations and is therefore wrong - he is able to
>> *demonstrate* that he is and ought to be seen as the moral equal of
>> those in the advantaged group.
>>
>> The analogy with racism and sexism and other wholly *human* "isms" is
>> spurious.
>>
>> The passivists cannot make a case as to *why* the interests of members
>> of other species ought to be given the same moral weight as the
>> interests of members of our own species. Forget about "marginal cases"
>> - that doesn't achieve anything.
>
> Equality of interests is the default starting position in ethics.

No.