View Single Post
  #115 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
Dutch Dutch is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


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

>>
>> [..]
>>
>> >> >> >> 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.

>>
>> Your reasoning is completely backwards. We have an inherent right and
>> capability as animals to exploit our environments in order to succeed as
>> all
>> organisms do. These rights and freedoms are curtailed in specific and
>> limited ways by an evolved social network that protects us and other
>> indivduals within that network.

>
> On what basis do we decide which individuals are in the network?


You know what the bases are.

>> Every "right" we introduce into this system
>> is actually a further limitation on our freedom, so we do so with
>> caution.

>
> Whose freedom are we interested in protecting, and why?


We are protecting those we wish to protect, because we want to protect them.

>> There is nothing in the paragraph above that tells me that you remotely
>> understand this process.
>>

>
> Cases that are similar in morally relevant ways should be treated
> similarly. That goes back to Aristotle. I don't think you've made a
> decent case against it.


You haven't expressed that idea in a coherent way, it's just talk.

>> >> > 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?

>>
>> The species an animal belongs to is an accurate descriptor of the upper
>> limit of it's cognitive abilities and characteristics.
>>

>
> No, it's not.


Of course it is. There is absolutely no doubt about the cognitive abilities
of a specific animal within a narrow range once you know for example that it
is a chicken, a frog, or a mosquito.

> It just has the cognitive abilities that it has.


And you know what they are within a narrow range by it's species.

> Whether
> or not there might be an animal wandering around somewhere who can
> interbreed with it who's a bit smarter is irrelevant. That's a
> characteristic of the ecosystem to which the animal belongs, not the
> animal itself.


We are all components of an ecosystem with specific characteristics defined
by our species.

>> >> 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.

>>
>> "everyone agrees that there is a serious problem with defending
>> speciesism".
>>

>
> Uh-huh.


Cohen doesn't agree, and I guarantee he's not the only one.

>> > Some people think they can do it, such
>> > as Carl Cohen.

>>
>> Then he does not agree that there is a serious problem,

>
> False.


True

>> therefore you were
>> lying when you said everyone agrees that there is a serious problem with
>> defending speciesism.
>>

>
> No, I am not.


Where does Cohen say that there is a serious problem defending speciesism?

>> >If you doubt my word, read the philosophical literature
>> > and form your own conclusions.

>>
>> Why would I NOT doubt your word after that?
>>
>> >> You don't speak for "everyone" in the <ahem> philosophical
>> >> community,
>> >
>> > Your disparagement of the philosophical community is out of place.

>>
>> I wasn't disparging the philosophical community, I was disparging your
>> appeal to authority.

>
> There's no appeal to authority since it was not meant to have any
> argumentative force. The point of the exercise was to make fun of Rick
> when he said that anyone who couldn't see the truth of his position was
> "ignorant and stupid". His argument is very weak, and I don't think he
> can plausibly claim the entire philosophical community is more
> "ignorant and stupid" than him.
>
>> You have already demonstrated that you are incapable of
>> honestly portraying the opinion of the philosophical community.
>>

>
> False.
>
>> > 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.

>>
>> In your highly biased opinion.
>>

>
> My opinion is not biased.


Oh come off it!

> I am good at assessing the strength of an
> argument.


No you aren't, you don't even listen to my arguments, you repeat them back
to me in terms that reveal your bias, discarding the essence of my aguments.

> If I came across a good defence of speciesism I would
> acknowledge it.


How do you know that you are capable of judging a good defense? I would
recognize a rational critique of it if I saw it, I have not heard one yet.

> For example, I acknowledge that Neil Levy's elaboration
> of the argument is an improvement.
>
>> > He doesn't address the
>> > argument from marginal cases.

>>
>> That is not a valid argument as I have demonstrated.

>
> Whether or not *you* have come up with a good response to it, Cohen
> still has to address it. Your response is essentially the same as
> Levy's "natural kinds" argument, except that you have modified it in
> response to my thought-experiment. The underlying principle is one that
> needs defending.


The underlying principle that we all use when viewing animals is essentially
the same. The difference is that ARAs have this poorly contructed slant on
it that they insist is morally more evolved but they have yet to clearly
formulate why others views are wrong, and they fail to recognize how theirs
are essentially the same.

>> Again, the AR community
>> turns reality on it's ear then demands that everyone else prove them
>> wrong.
>>
>> > 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).

>>
>> An argument which I shattered, not that you could have noticed..
>>

>
> You modified your underlying principle in response to it. The question
> is why anyone should think that this principle has the least
> plausibility.


What do you think my response was?

>> >> "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.

>>
>> Yes
>> >
>> >> 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.

>>
>> How the hell do you know? By what definition?
>>

>
> Sentience is the capacity for conscious experience. An animal without a
> nervous system can reasonably be assumed to be insentient.


By human standards, but just applying that standard to non-human animals is
speciesist.

>> > That is not speciesist.

>>
>> Where is "sentience" whatever you mean by that, implied in the word
>> "species"? If I dismiss an entire species because I define them all as
>> not
>> sentient, how am I not being speciesist?
>>

>
> If you observe that all members of a certain species have
> characteristics such that you can reasonably presume them not to be
> sentient, and treat them accordingly, you are treating individuals on
> the basis of their individual characteristics, not what is typical for
> their species or on the basis of the best representative of their
> species. You are not being speciesist if you do that.


You can never observe "all members" of a species, you can only observe a
relatively very small number of them, then extrapolate that onservation to
the whole species. Species offers a simple and accurate means to determine
the characteristics of the members of that species. That is what you call
speciesism, and it's a rational approach to animals that we all use.

>> >> too
>> >> ubiquitous to avoid destroying,
>> >
>> > That is justified by limitations on the presumption against causing
>> > harm, which are necessary for human civilization to survive.

>>
>> Who says the human species must survive at the cost of harming others?

>
> You and I. When we find someone who disagrees, we can argue the point.


That's speciesist too.

>> How
>> are you defining "survival"? What happened to equal consideration, to
>> dealing on an individual basis?
>>

>
> It's still there. The limitations on the presumption against causing
> harm, if they take into account any characteristics of the affected
> beings at all, must only take into account their individual
> characteristics, not the characteristics that are typical for their
> species or displayed by the best representative of their species.


It's impractical (impossible actually) and unecessary. A series of
observations of a few indivduals over time gives an accurate picture of all
the indivduals of a species.

>> > These
>> > limitations must be formulated in non-speciesist ways.

>>
>> By holding intelligence tests on an indivdual-by-indivdual basis?
>>

>
> On the basis of what we reasonably know about the individuals.


By observing theespecies to which they belong.

>
>> >> too inconvenient to preserve, therefore it
>> >> is the default reality,
>> >
>> > No. These considerations are no argument against equal consideration.

>>
>> "Equal consideration" is a meaningless buzz-phrase.
>>

>
> No, it is not. You have read a detailed discussion of what it means.


I read a bunch of circular rhetoric that relied on more buzz-phrases.

>> >> 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.

>>
>> You have not indicated where you think the line should be drawn,
>> conveniently avoiding the need to defend it.
>>

>
> I have given just as many details about where the line should be drawn
> as you have about where you think it should be drawn.
>
>> > 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.

>>
>> We don't, ALL individuals of all species we kill in agriculture for
>> example
>> fall below a threshold of cognitive ability that most humans would find
>> unacceptable in animals we use for food or harm regularly.
>>

>
> Most humans would not be prepared to inflict similar harms on humans
> with similar characteristics.


There you go with the backwards reasoning again.

> If you want to revise that judgement,
> fine.


There's no need to revise it, there is no problem with it.

> If you want to keep the judgement *and* you want to keep the
> judgement about the animals harmed by agriculture, you're being
> speciesist


There's nothing wrong with being speciesist.

> and you have to come up with a good argument against equal
> consideration.


Why? It has no rational definition.

>> You display the typically arrogant approach of the ARA. You attack and
>> presume to sit in judgment, but when asked to give real alternatives you
>> hide behind vague, lofty sounding catch-phrases.

>
> I have explained my position in at least as much detail as you have
> explained yours.


Your position completely lacks details, it is comprised of misbegotten
ideals and poorly defined buzz-phrases. I have absolutely no idea how this
so-called moral evolution could possibly work.