Dutch wrote:
> "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.
>

If that is a sufficient reasno to exploit animals in the way we do, it
should also be a sufficient reason to exploit radically cognitively
impaired humans. If you're not comfortable with doing this, but you
still want to defend exploiting nonhumans, you've got to identify a
morally relevant difference and argue that it is morally relevant.

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

In what way is it morally relevant, and why?

> 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.

I did not say this. I said everyone acknowledges that there is a
serious problem with doing it. Some people think they can do it, such
as Carl Cohen. If you doubt my word, read the philosophical literature
and form your own conclusions.

> You don't speak for "everyone" in the <ahem> philosophical
> community,

Your disparagement of the philosophical community is out of place.
You're not familiar with the philosophical literature, and if you were
you could learn something about how to construct a good argument.

> and in fact Cohen defends it quite nicely in "Regan vs Cohen".

No, that's a very poor defence of speciesism. He doesn't address the
argument from marginal cases. Neil Levy has kindly helped him out by
elaborating his argument into the "natural kinds" argument, which has
some credibility, but there are still important challenges to it, one
of which I have mentioned on this thread (the thought-experiment of the
nonhuman with abnormally good cognitive abilities).

> "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,

No.

> 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,

Because they are not sentient. That is not speciesist.

> too
> ubiquitous to avoid destroying,

That is justified by limitations on the presumption against causing
harm, which are necessary for human civilization to survive. These
limitations must be formulated in non-speciesist ways.

> too inconvenient to preserve, therefore it
> is the default reality,

No. These considerations are no argument against equal consideration.

> 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.

Everyone has to draw a line somewhere and argue for why that is the
place the line should be drawn. You have indicated where you draw the
line, now it is your job to defend that. My criticism of it is that
there is no good reason to judge a being's moral status on the basis of
what is typical for his or her species.