View Single Post
  #117 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
Rupert Rupert is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


Dutch wrote:
> "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.
>


Why?

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

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


"Equal consideration" is not a buzz-phrase. You have read a detailed
discussion of what it means and doesn't mean. A number of different
theories are consistent with equal consideration. I believe that if you
want to deny equal consideration, you have a burden of proof to meet,
which you haven't met. You haven't given me a reason to think your
position is rationally preferable to accepting equal consideration.

> > 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?
>


Then we'd have to consider giving it some moral status. Hypothetical
thought-experiments are relevant in moral philosophy, there was nothing
objectionable about the use to which I put this one.

I'm not dense. I don't think I can be bothered talking to you if that's
going to be your level of courtesy.