"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> 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

Your reasoning is backwards. That is not the test. There is no animal of
another species that can demonstrate the equivalent of human abilities.

> except certain genetic characteristics, which
> cannot be plausibly held to be morally relevant.

Sure it can. Genetics, species membership, is an accurate catch-all
categorization that delineates all the attributes of members within it.

>> 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.

I seriously question your word that "everyone agrees" that speciesism cannot
be defended. You don't speak for "everyone" in the <ahem> philosophical
community, and in fact Cohen defends it quite nicely in "Regan vs Cohen".
"Speciesism", the rational worldview, is not to be confused with terms like
"racism" and "sexism" which carry a pjorative "unfair" connotation. Everyone
is a speciesist, the only question is at what point do you begin to allow
non-human animals into your sphere of consideration and for what reasons.
You dismiss animals too small for your normal perception to distinguish, too
ubiquitous to avoid destroying, too inconvenient to preserve, therefore it
is the default reality, and the onus falls on so-called "non-speciesism
advocates" to argue where that line should be and why there should be only
one place for everyone.