View Single Post
  #90 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-09-2006, 12:30 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
Rupert Rupert is offline
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


rick wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message
ps.com...



The morally relevant difference lies in the essential
difference between
humans and the animal species we use as food, or kill in crop
fields, or
what-have-you.


You can identify some differences which hold between most
humans and
most nonhumans and claim that they are morally relevant, but
there will
always be some humans who don't have these differences from
nonhuman
animals.

=====================
But the main difference still remains. Within each person is the
seed of what being human is.
No such seed exists in ANY animal.


I don't know what "the seed of being human" is. It's just empty
hand-waving. There is no property which all humans have in common and
all nonhumans lack, except certain genetic characteristics, which
cannot be plausibly held to be morally relevant.

The person you claim now
doesn't have the differences from animals has the potential to
achieve those differences. No matter how much hand-waving, and
how many strawmen you prop up, NO animals will ever achive the
difference. Again, your ignorance and stupidity blind you to
reality.


It's quite funny to see you talking about "ignorance and stupidity".
The philosophical community has been debating this issue for the last
thirty years and everyone agrees that there is a serious problem with
defending speciesism. I really don't think you are competent to judge
all these professional philosophers to be ignorant and stupid. Why
don't you try and publish the argument you just came up with, see how
you go. If you really think you can defend speciesism I'm sure everyone
would be very excited to hear about it.