Dutch wrote:
> "Glorfindel" > wrote in message
> ...
> > rick wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>>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.
> >
> > Which is what? How are you defining "human"?
>
> Member of the human species.
>
> And, as
> > important, why is it morally relevant?
>
> It's morally relevant because we say it is. Everyone believes it's morally
> relevant, including you, questioning it is simply disinformation.
>

Nonsense. It's *not* obvious to a lot of people when they think about
it. Most people who read Chapter 1 of Peter Singer's "Animal
Liberation" either agree that species membership as such is not morally
relevant, or see that there's a serious question there about how to
defend it. You're saying it needs no defence and it's not legitimate
even to question it. A racist might have said similar things about
discrimination on the basis of race back in the nineteenth century. Of
course it can be legitimately questioned, it needs defending. A lot of
smart people have tried to defend it for the last thirty years and
failed. You are doing no better.

> >> No such seed exists in ANY animal.
> >
> > Depends on what your definition is.
>
> There is only one definition.
>
> >> The person you claim now doesn't have the differences from animals has
> >> the potential to achieve those differences.
> >
> > That is not true for all biological members of the human species.
> > Pick any characteristic which is morally relevant, and you will
> > find at least some biological humans who lack it from birth and/or
> > are completely incapable of developing it.
>
> A few animals lack the inherent abilities of other members of their species,
> they are still members of that species. Failure to possess the qualities of
> one's species is ad hoc, arbitrary or accidental, not a logical approach.
> The proper measure is qualities which members of a species possess by
> default, not qualities which rare individuals are missing.
>
> > Speciesism is simply
> > a prejudice, like racism or sexism.
>
> That's a perverse view which nobody actually holds. Even ARAs and vegans
> dismiss whole species of animals based on dissimilarity to humans.

That's discrimination on the basis of individual characteristics which
are held to be morally relevant, not discrimination on the basis of
species. It's not speciesism.