On 4/10/2012 10:50 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2:16 am, George Plimpton > wrote:
>> On 4/10/2012 3:54 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 10, 3:50 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/10/2012 12:35 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 9, 10:41 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/9/2012 12:04 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 6:42 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/9/2012 9:15 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 4:31 pm, George > 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 you're doing.
>>
>>>>>>> Why not?
>>
>>>>>> You tell us what your motive is.
>>
>>>>> I don't understand this.
>>
>> Yes, you do.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 fully defeats the fake argument from marginal cases.
>>
>>>>>>> Wrong.
>>
>>>>>> Nope; right.
>>
>>>>> What exactly are the premises of the argument from species normality?
>>
>>>> Above you wrote, "The argument from species normality is flawed." Do
>>>> you mean to say you wrote that without knowing what the premises are?
>>>> That seems very reckless and irresponsible.
>>
>>> I believe that one of the premises of the argument from species
>>> normality is that the moral consideration an individual should get is
>>> determined by what characteristics are typical for that individual's
>>> species, and I believe that it is possible to construct thought-
>>> experiments which show this premise to be problematic.
>>
>> Have a go at it.
>>
>
> Do you know the thought-experiment of the chimpanzee who can
> understand advanced mathematics?

Su the chimpanzee that has never existed and that no one has any
reason to think ever will exist.

Rights are something to aid in regulating relations in the real world,
not in some demented science fiction thought experiment cooked up by
psychotics.