On 4/9/2012 9:15 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 9, 4:31 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>> On 4/8/2012 11:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 9, 6:44 am, George > 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.
>>
>> Yes, they are. You are requiring humans to behave a particular way due
>> to their species. That's "speciesism" (an ugly, contrived word, in fact
>> not even a real word at all, as every spell-checker in existence
>> demonstrates by flagging it as not a word.)
>>
>
> No, they're not requiring that humans behave a particular way due to
> their species. Saying that only moral agents have moral obligations is
> not speciesism.

That's not what they're saying. They're saying that humans are obliged
to act in a specific way due to a trait that sets them apart from all
other species. That's speciesism, in the vilest sense of the word.
It's exactly equivalent to saying that blacks are obliged to sit at the
back of the bus for a trait distinctive to their race.

"aras" are speciesists. This is not in rational dispute.

>>>>>> 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 understand full well what it is. In fact, it's sophistry.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> 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
>>
>>>> "marginal cases" doesn't work. It's useless.
>>
>>> Why not?
>>
>> I've explained that to you before, too. The argument from species
>> normality defeats it, among other things.
>
> The argument from species normality is flawed.

No, it isn't. It is the argument from marginal cases that is fatally
flawed.