Dutch wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> >
> > 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.
>
> Playing the race card in this discussion is on a level with the Hitler card,
> or arguing the rights of plants.
>

There was nothing wrong with the analogy I drew.

> 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.
>
> I am doing relatively fine,

You are not. You can't even make up your mind what your position is.
First you said we should judge individuals on the basis of what's
typical for their species, then you said we should judge individuals on
the basis of the best representative of their species. *You need to
argue this point*.


> the fact that an avowed ARA can't see it is no
> measure of success or failure. Your worldview will not allow you to see it.
>

Instead of coming up with an argument, you impugn my ability to
rationally assess arguments. It's not going to convince any rational
person.

> >> >> 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.
>
> Bullshit, it's not individual, it can't possibly be, you can't interview
> every fly, snail, or cockroach. It is dismissal of entire species based on
> the knowledge that NONE of them can possibly possess capabilities beyond a
> particular rudimentary level. People who dismiss mosquitos as irrelevant do
> so using the exact same kind of speciesist logic as those who dismiss
> chickens. We do so because we correctly ascertain that NO CHICKEN can
> possibly exist beyond a certain level of "sentience".

It is on the basis of individual characteristics, rather than on the
basis of what is typical for their species or the characteristics the
best representative of their species has.