"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On 4/8/2012 11:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 9, 6:44 am, George Plimpton > wrote:
>> 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, and in any case there is no good reason why we should
>>> use the behaviour of nonhuman animals as a moral guide.
>>
>> No other species show *moral* concern for interests of other species'
>> members.
>>
>> The point of the post is that those who decry "speciesism" are relying
>> on it to say that humans should not engage in it.
>>
>
> No, they are not.
They are.
>
>>>> 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.
>>
>
> You obviously don't understand what speciesism is.
I do - far better than you, wobbler.
|