"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>> >
>> > Dutch wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>> > I disagree.
>> >>
>> >> You're wrong.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Well, that's as may be. But you've introduced an undefined and
>> > unexplained notion - "essential ability to hold those characteristics"
>> > - and twice asserted without the slightest argument that all humans
>> > have this ability and no nonhumans do. With all respect, I don't think
>> > you're doing a very good job of defending your position.
>>
>> That may be, I thought it obvious, but ok I'll connect the dots. It's
>> simple
>> observation.
>> 1. Aside from expected rare exceptions, all humans hold these
>> characteristics, but more importantly..
>> 2. Without exception, no non-humans hold or have ever held the
>> characteristics, therefore one can conclude that if any animal does,
>> humans
>> alone possess the "essential ability to hold those characteristics".
>>
>> To address an expected objection... You will say that the existence of
>> some
>> humans without those characteristics negates the proposition of a set of
>> essential human characteristics. Referring to physical abilities, one
>> might
>> state the rule that humans, as a species, possess the "essential ability"
>> to
>> walk upright on two legs. This is true despite exceptions to the rule,
>> such
>> as Spina Bifida sufferers. Just as mosquitoes and chickens have an
>> "essential set of characteristics". so do humans.
>>
>
> So you're saying an individual's moral status should be judged on the
> basis of what's typical for his or her species.

No, a species' moral status should be judged on the basis of the high-water
mark of capabilities for indivduals of that species. It's implausible to to
suggest that we should or could judge every single individual of every
species.

> I want you to explain
> why this should be,

Show me a better way, that would work, and no buzz-phrases.

> and to address the fact that it has
> counter-intuitive consequences for a hypothetical thought-experiment
> which I presented.

Bloody hell you're dense, we can't base our actions on hypothetical
thought-experiments. What if we discovered a talking plant?

>> >> >> even if they are impaired due to misfortune. No animals of any
>> >> >> other
>> >> >> species
>> >> >> have the potential to have such abilities, ZERO.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > The reality is it is a continuum.
>> >>
>> >> No it's not a continuum, it's black and white.
>> >>
>> >
>> > This flies in the face of the evolutionary facts. We know that our
>> > cognitive capacities developed incrementally during evolutionary
>> > history, and hence that they are matter of degree.
>>
>> We share a lot of similiarlities with bananas on a cellular level also,
>> that
>> does not make a relevant fact.
>>
>
> Irrelevant.

Correct, and so is "our evolutionary history". We are living in the world
NOW, not 10's of thousands of years ago.

> You said there is a sharp dividing line between humans and
> nonhumans.

There is, on some levels, on others there is very little.

> I was simply pointing out that all species are the product
> of a continuous process of development. Given any two species, there
> once existed a set of evolutionary intermediaries between them such
> that the process of developing from one species into the other via the
> intermediaries was gradual and incremental. You may say we can draw a
> threshold which distinguishes all existing humans from all existing
> nonhumans today. But the question is where do we draw the threshold,
> and why?

I have already told you what I think, when are you going to present an
opinion?

>You'll have to answer this if you want to credibly claim that
> "it's black and white".

I have already supported that claim. No non-human species possesses or ever
have possessed the attributes which I am saying make humans special.

> You've already admitted that you'd want to draw
> the threshold so that a few nonhuman species fall above it.

There is no one threshold, every species is different, every circumstance
warrants consideration. Great apes are not humans, but they are near enough
relatives to us that they deserve "special status" in my opinion.

>> Perhaps you are
>> > claiming that there is some non-arbitrary threshold we can stipulate
>> > that will draw a clear line between humans and some nonhuman species
>> > such as great apes and all the other species. Well, it's your job to
>> > specify that threshold and argue that it's non-arbitrary.
>>
>> What do mean by "arbitrary"? We possess cognitive powers that no other
>> species possesses, there is nothing arbitrary about it.
>>
>
> I thought you agreed that some nonhuman species should be allowed into
> the protected circle.

Yes, so? That doesn't make them human, or mean they possess the
characteristics of humans. Pets are in a protected circle also, for
different reasons.

> The way we divide up the animals of the world
> into species today is just an artifact of the accidents of evolutionary
> history.

Our very existence as a species is a result of a series of accidents of
evolutionary history. so what?

> If all the evolutionary intermediaries had survived, any two
> species would form one "ring species" - a group of individuals such
> that two individuals within the group sufficiently like one another can
> interbreed, two individuals not sufficiently like one another cannot,
> and any two individuals in the group can be connected by a series such
> that each adjacent pair is a pair that can interbreed.

So you're saying that if history had been radically different and there were
these other sub-species now that don't exist that we would view the world
differently? OK, probably. Why can't you argue your position based on the
real world instead of talking chimps and non-existent missing links?

>
>> >> > Nonhumans share these characteristics
>> >> > with us to varying degrees.
>> >>
>> >> No they don't.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Ridiculous and in blatant contradiction of the evolutionary facts.
>>
>> Evolution is irrelevant, we evolved from plenaria, should they be granted
>> human rights?
>>
>
> Straw man.

No it's not.

> You claimed that nonhumans do not share our cognitive
> characteristics with us in the slightest degree.

There's a strawman.

> That is totally
> untenable.

Except I didn't say it.

> And you contradicted it when you agreed that nonhuman great
> apes should be granted basic rights.

Even if I had said it, saying that great apes should granted rights would
not have contradicted it.


>> >You
>> > agree below that some nonhumans do have enough of the characteristics
>> > to have some basic moral rights, so you contradict yourself.
>>
>> I'm not contradicting myself, you are not grasping my position.
>>
>
> So, you maintain they should have the rights despite the fact that they
> don't have the characteristics in the slightest degree?

There's that strawman again, why are you introducing phrases like "the
slightest degree" to characterise my position?

> Why should they
> have the rights, then?

Because they are highly intelligent mammals, closely related to humans, and
are threatened.

>> > Your
>> > position is totally untenable anyway.
>>
>> ROTFL! That is hilarious coming from you. AR is completely untenable in
>> the
>> real world, the only place that it can exist is in the misanthropic human
>> imagination.
>>
>
> There is nothing misanthropic or untenable about it.

Yes on both counts. It's a rhetorical club used to attack "normal" people
who you feel rejected by, and it is completely irrational, evidenced by the
fact that it never takes actual form, it remains as catchy buzz-phrases.

>> >> > You can, if you want, pick a certain
>> >> > threshold and say "most humans are above this threshold, all
>> >> > nonhumans
>> >> > are below it." But you'll have to set the threshold pretty high.
>> >>
>> >> Nonsense
>> >>
>> >> > Consider the following individual:
>> >> >
>> >> > "She communicates in sign language, using a vocabulary of over 1000
>> >> > words. She also understands spoken English, and often carries on
>> >> > 'bilingual' conversations, responding in sign to questions asked in
>> >> > English. She is learning the letters of the alphabet, and can read
>> >> > some
>> >> > printed words, including her own name. She has achieved scored
>> >> > between
>> >> > 85 and 95 on the Standford-Binet Intelligence Test. She demonstrates
>> >> > a
>> >> > clear self-awareness by engaging in self-directed behaviours in
>> >> > front
>> >> > of a mirror, such as making faces or examining her teeth, and by her
>> >> > appropriate use of self-descriptive language. She lies to avoid the
>> >> > consequences of her own misbehaviour, and anticipates others'
>> >> > resopnses
>> >> > to her actions. She engages in imaginary play, both alone and with
>> >> > others. She has produced paintings and drawings which are
>> >> > representational. She remembers and can talk about past events in
>> >> > her
>> >> > life. She understands and has used appropriately time-related words
>> >> > like 'before', 'after', 'later' and 'yesterday'. She laughs at her
>> >> > own
>> >> > jokes and those of others. She cries when hurt or left alone,
>> >> > screams
>> >> > when frightened or angered. She talks about her feelings, using
>> >> > words
>> >> > like 'happy', 'sad', 'afraid', 'enjoy', 'eager', 'frustrate', 'made'
>> >> > and, quite frequently, 'love'. She grieves for those she has lost -
>> >> > a
>> >> > favourite cat who has died, a friend who has gone away. She can talk
>> >> > about what happens when one dies, but she becomes fidgety and
>> >> > uncomfortable when asked to discuss her own death or the death of
>> >> > her
>> >> > companions. She displays a wonderful gentleness with kittens and
>> >> > other
>> >> > small animals. She has even expressed empathy for others seen only
>> >> > in
>> >> > pictures."
>> >> >
>> >> > That's a description of a nonhuman. You can set the threshold higher
>> >> > than that if you want, but many would like to see some kind of
>> >> > justification for doing so.
>> >>
>> >> I am not at all convinced that a lot of what is reported there is not
>> >> projection on the part of over-zealous handlers.
>> >
>> > It's hard to see how it could be. The report almost entirely concerns
>> > itself with objective matters of fact which it would be hard to be
>> > mistaken about.
>>
>> I have seen this gorilla "Jojo"
>
> Koko.

Right, sorry.

>> on several documentaries, one in particular
>> took a skeptical approach and it was evident that the handlers saw what
>> they
>> wanted to see on many occasions. In any case I am not disputing the
>> intelligence of apes, or even of dogs and cats.
>>
>
> I thought no nonhuman shared our cognitive characteristics in the
> slightest degree.

You thought wrong, many cognitive characteristics are common to all animals,
a certain set are unique to humans.

> So how do we go about deciding which species have
> moral status, then?

Using a set of clear and reasonable criteria.

>
>> [..]
>>
>> >> > Nonhumans do have similar capabilities to SOME humans.
>> >>
>> >> You're still approaching the question backwards.
>> >>
>> >
>> > What's that supposed to mean?
>>
>> It means that the test of inherent capabilities does not hinge on a few
>> impaired individuals. Humans have the inherent capability of speech,
>> "humans
>> can talk" is a true statement, even though a few people are born
>> deaf-mute.
>>
>
> Yes, well you're assuming that an individual's moral status should be
> judged on the basis of what's typical for his or her species, I want
> you to defend that, and address my thought-experiment.

I have done so.

>
>> > Do you have any argument with what I say
>> > below? If not, you'll have to come to terms with the consequences.
>>
>> You say a number of things below, but I am confident that I have an
>> argument
>> with it. The person here having difficulty coming to terms with the
>> consequences of his position is you.
>> >
>> >> > Whatever we
>> >> > decide about these beings, they should be treated the same way. It's
>> >> > not true that these humans have the "essential ability" or the
>> >> > "potential" to have these characteristics you're so excited about.
>> >> > It's
>> >> > irrational to treat beings on the basis of what is typical for their
>> >> > species, rather than their individual characteristics.
>> >>
>> >> The regime of rights attempts with limited success to view the human
>> >> species
>> >> as a family or a tribe. It is not irrational to view one's family
>> >> favorably.
>> >>
>> >
>> > But most people would see a problem with exploiting people just because
>> > they happen not to be members of your family.
>>
>> "Exploit" is a charged word, My employer exploits my talents, as do my
>> personal computer clients. I exploit the great variety of entertainment
>> options in my area. Maybe you could come up with something less
>> prejudicial
>> and more descriptive. Do you mean to "treat unfairly"? I say that to say
>> we
>> treat animals unfairly when we use them for food flies in the face of the
>> very nature of life. You may as well call a rainstorm unjust.
>>
>
> How about "inflict serious harm in order to serve your own purposes"?

That's clearer, now show why we should not do so, and how. Every other
living organism does it. It is almost a definitive description of the
biosphere in which we live.

>> > The analogy with
>> > partiality based on family relationships doesn't justify the status
>> > quo.
>>
>> I wasn't trying to "justify" it, I was attempting to create a context
>> that
>> would allow you to understand how I view it.
>>
>> >> >> Instead you are attempting to drag all humans down to the
>> >> >> level of other animals by pointing to rare humans who's human
>> >> >> abilities
>> >> >> are
>> >> >> impaired. That is not a logical approach, because impairment of
>> >> >> abilities
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> ad hoc, arbitrary and meaningless, it can occur by injury,
>> >> >> accident,
>> >> >> disease
>> >> >> or fluke of genetics, it does not exist by nature.
>> >> >
>> >> > I can't distinguish between the condition of being born a
>> >> > permanently
>> >> > radically cognitively impaired human and being born a nonhuman. They
>> >> > both seem to be "by nature" to me.
>> >>
>> >> I think you could if you tried, but you don't want to. The nature of
>> >> humans
>> >> is not to have single-digit IQs, it is to have IQs of 100.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Not all humans. Ultimately all you can say to justify your conclusion
>> > is "a being's moral status should be based on what's typical for his or
>> > her species."
>>
>> Assuming that NO member of that species has EVER demonstrated
>> significantly
>> greater capabilities, like mosquitoes.
>>
>
> Then each individual should be granted the moral status appropriate for
> his or her characteristics.

It's impossible and unecessary, since no non-human has ever, or can ever
exhibit the extrordinary capabilities of a human.

>> > That's a statement standing in need of an argument.
>>
>> Since as I have shown, it is precisely how we all think, YOU need to
>> present
>> a counter-argument.
>>
>
> No, it's not how we all think.

Yes it is. As I said in a previous post, the person who dismisses mosquitoes
as less than important is using the same kind of "speciesist" rationale as
the person who dismisses chickens, except they have a different threshold.

> Most people haven't thought about it to
> that extent.

They don't have to consciously think about it, their beliefs and actions are
evidence.

> Moral philosophers have tried to come up with a way of
> defending our intuitions about how we should treat other species
> against the argument from marginal cases, and this is the best we have
> come up with so far.

The argument from marginal cases is phony, I already explained why.

> It's a principle that's being invoked to justify a
> set of intuitions. But when it comes to our intuitions about
> principles, many people find it more plausible that individuals should
> be judged on their own characteristics rather than what's typical for
> their species. The fact that the latter approach yields results more in
> harmony with our intuitions about particular cases is not enough. The
> principle needs more defence. We need to have it explained why that
> should be so. A moral theory needs to do more than just yield the
> correct results, it needs to have explanatory power.

A moral theory needs to exist within a real framework, a context, not just
rely on intuitive-sounding buzz-phrases. You create pjorative sounding words
like "speciesist" and extrapolate social principles which we hold dear then
announce that we must automatically apply them to animals, you are setting
yourself up as requiring to support such actions.

> Furthermore I have presented a counter-argument, which you have not
> addressed.

I didn't notice.
>
>
>> > It
>> > also has some counter-intuitive consequences, as discussed below.
>>
>> Probably based on a misunderstanding on your part..
>>
>
> Argue the point.

What point?

>> >> >> The question is asked,
>> >> >> "What if a race of beings came to the earth with powers equal to or
>> >> >> greater
>> >> >> than humans?" They would be accorded rights, just as any animal
>> >> >> species
>> >> >> would who demonstrated capacities equivalent to humans.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Very few defenders of animal
>> >> >> > agriculture are actually prepared to come out and say that. If
>> >> >> > they
>> >> >> > want to say it, fine, then the matter can be debated. But if they
>> >> >> > hold
>> >> >> > that it's permissible to do it to the nonhumans, but not the
>> >> >> > relevantly
>> >> >> > similar humans,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There are no animals relevantly similar to humans.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > then the characteristics we identified aren't what
>> >> >> > count after all, but rather species membership.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Species membership identifies all beings who either have, have the
>> >> >> potential
>> >> >> to have, or have in their essence human abilities, or humanness.
>> >> >
>> >> > Don't agree with "have in their essence". It's hand-waving.
>> >>
>> >> No it's not, it's descriptive. No monkey has in it's essence a poet,
>> >> philosopher or musician.
>> >>
>> >
>> > No radically cognitively impaired human has either.
>>
>> Idiot savant
>>
>
> That's not what I mean by "radically cognitively impaired human".

It's an invalid and ad hoc argument. Humans are defined by what humans are,
not by what they are after a car crash.

>> > So what?
>>
>> So everything Rupert. The existence of a few people with no legs does not
>> change the essential physical nature of the human race. But no snake can
>> stand up and walk.
>>
>
> But the principle that an individual should be judged on the basis of
> what's typical for his or her species needs defending.

That's a strawman, the wording is yours and reveals a misunderstanding of
rights.

I've also
> presented a counter-argument which you haven't addressed.

I don't know what youre talking about.


>> >> If the
>> >> > permanently radically cognitively impaired humans have it in their
>> >> > essence, why not the nonhumans too?
>> >>
>> >> Cognitively impaired humans are exceptional cases usually a result of
>> >> accident or misfortune, exceptions to not make a rule.
>> >>
>> >
>> > But why should the rule be based on what's typical for the species,
>> > rather than on individual characteristics?
>>
>> Because it's impossible and implausible to look at it that way. Show me
>> an
>> example of ONE individual of any of the species we "exploit" or kill in
>> agriculture that has ever demonstrated a cognitive functioning set
>> approaching that of a human?
>
> They do have cognitive functions similar to some humans whom we think
> should have some moral status. We have to revise either our beliefs
> about the livestock or about the humans.

Wrong, we have to do neither, the rights the humans enjoy they enjoy
*despite* their impairment.

>> Are you going to administer an intelligence
>> test every time you decide to swat a mosquito, or are you going to treat
>> mosquitoes as a species?
>
> I will treat each individual mosquito on the basis of what I reasonably
> believe about his or her mental characteristics.

How do know what that is? Species.

>> Are we going to grant rights to cockroaches because
>> there are humans in comas with no cognitive functions?
>
> If a human has permanently lost all capacity for consciousness, then
> the only things relevant are his or her past wishes and the wishes of
> those close to him or her.

Yes, but that wasn't my question. The existence a brain damaged person who's
humanity we respect despite his handicap has nothing to do with cockroaches.


>> Talk about an
>> untenable position.
>>
>>
>> >> > Suppose we encountered a chimpanzee who had the same level of
>> >> > intelligence as a highly intelligent human adult. What would we say
>> >> > about this chimpanzee? Would we say that "in essence" he has the
>> >> > same
>> >> > characteristics as ordinary chimpanzees and should be treated
>> >> > accordingly, or would we say that all the chimpanzees have his
>> >> > characteristics "in essence" and should be raised to his level? It's
>> >> > irrational to judge on the basis of what's typical for an
>> >> > individual's
>> >> > species. The individual characteristics should be what count.
>> >>
>> >> You raise a valid question in theory but in reality there is no need
>> >> for
>> >> an
>> >> answer, since no chimpanzee will ever be as intelligent as a
>> >> functional
>> >> human.
>> >
>> > The thought-experiment is meant to bring attention to the
>> > counter-intuitive consequences of maintaining that beings should be
>> > granted a moral status based on what's typical for their species. If
>> > this is what you are maintaining, you need to indicate how you will
>> > deal with the challenge posed by this thought-experiment.
>>
>> The "thought experiment" did not present a real challenge, therefore does
>> not require a real solution. If ONE chimp ever demonstrated human
>> abilities
>> in my opinion all chimps should immediately be elevated in moral status,
>
> Thank you. I finally got a response.
>
> So now it's no longer that an individual should be judged on the basis
> of what's typical for his or her species, but he or she should be
> judged on the basis of the most cognitively sophisticated member of his
> or her species.

Species can be defined by the most cognitively sophisticated member of that
species.

>*Why?*

For lack of a better way.

> The species boundaries that exist today are just
> an arbitrary product of evolutionary history. If all the evolutionary
> intermediaries existed there would be no sharply defined species
> boundaries.

That's a different world than the one we live in.

> You can't just say "This position is what everyone thinks".

I didn't say that, stop putting quotes on sentences you make up.

> It's a position you tailor-made to produce results in harmony with your
> beliefs about other species

Your position is tailor-made to remain in harmony with your beliefs about
other species.

> and so as to give an acceptable answer to
> my thought-experiment.

I'm glad you found it acceptable, so did I.

> It's hardly an intuitively obvious moral
> principle.

It is to me, but I perceive moral principles as existing within the context
of the actual world, you see them as existing in arcane philosophy books.

> You need to justify it.

I have done.

>> but
>> that's irrelevant for a number of reasons. 1. I already think chimps
>> ought
>> to enjoy elevated moral status, 2. If given human status, many chimps
>> would
>> immediately qualify as murderers, since in an AR world, that's what most
>> chimps are, they kill young, assault and kill members of other troupes
>> and
>> hunt baby monkeys for food, and lastly, 3. No chimp will ever demonstrate
>> such abilities, so the point is meaningless anyway. The real world does
>> not
>> have to react to hypothetical conundrums that have no chance of
>> occurring.

There's the answer to your hypothetical scenario.

>> >> But the question is unnecessary, because chimpanzees are close enough
>> >> cousins of humans that in my view they ought to be protected anyway.
>> >>
>> >> >> > Someone can advocate
>> >> >> > that species membership is the crucial characteristic too, but
>> >> >> > then
>> >> >> > they have to confront the arguments against speciesism in the
>> >> >> > literature.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There are no valid arguments against speciesism.
>> >> >
>> >> > There are no valid arguments *for* speciesism.
>> >>
>> >> There don't need to be,
>> >
>> > Yes, there do.
>>
>> No, there don't, period.
>>
>> > Treating cases differently when a morally relevant
>> > difference is not apparent requires justification.
>>
>> Those are just words that have you all tied up in knots. We ALL treat
>> animal
>> species and humans differently in various ways,
>
> Because there are relevant differences.

Animals all have a drive to survive, thrive and participate in their species
communities, regardless of whether or not we call them "sentient".

> But we should treat nonhumans
> in the same way we would treat relevantly similar humans.

There's that buzz-phrase again. That really hooked you didn't it?

>> according to a whole variety
>> of largely subjective criteria. There is no other rational way to address
>> the real world.
>>
>> >
>> >> it is the way nature is. You give no thought
>> >> whatsoever to other species until they appear all furry tails and big
>> >> eyes
>> >> on some quasi-political bandwagon.
>> >>
>> >> > Philosophers have been
>> >> > trying to find one for a long time, and have failed. We should treat
>> >> > individuals on the basis of their individual characteristics, not
>> >> > what
>> >> > is typical for their species. If you are uncomfortable with treating
>> >> > permanently radically cognitively impaired humans in a certain way,
>> >> > you
>> >> > shouldn't treat nonhumans in that way, either.
>> >>
>> >> That's your silly quasi-political bandwagon. Nobody treats non-humans
>> >> as
>> >> they treat humans,
>> >
>> > Nobody is suggesting they should.
>>
>> You are. We already treat them differently, you claim that is wrong
>> because
>> it is "speciesist", that implies you think they should not be judged
>> based
>> on species.
>>
>
> I claim a moral theory which implies it is morally permissible to
> inflict a certain harm on a nonhuman for a certain purpose, but not on
> a relevantly similar human for the same purpose, cannot be acceptable.

"Relevantly similar" is meaningless.

>> > What is being advocated is equal
>> > consideration. Some people advocate equal consideration and practice
>> > what they preach.
>>
>> High-sounding words that mean nothing. Instead of mouthing vague
>> catch-phrases propose something specific and consistent.
>
> "Equal consideration" does mean something.

Then define it without using more buzz-phrases.

> It doesn't resolve every
> question that can be raised about animal ethics.

No, it creates imaginary ones.

> I'm not going to set
> forth for you a complete theory that resolves every difficult question
> that can be asked.

I know you're not.

>You know what changes the animal movement wants

I sure do, and they're irrational.

> If
> you want to argue against them, either argue that they are not required
> by equal consideration,

Define it without more buzz-phrases.

or come up with a decent argument against equal
> consideration.

That would be like trapping a wisp of smoke. "Equal consideration" can't be
argued against, it's an undefined feelgood buzz-phrase.