"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> 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
>> suggest that we should or could judge every single individual of every
>> species.
>>
>
> Why?

First of all, it would be physically impossible, second, it would be
pointless, history tells us that no matter how many chickens we interview,
the outcome will be exactly the same.

>> > 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.

That detailed discussion ended with an admission that even he, the person
who coined the phrase, really had no idea what it means. In other words it's
a phrase that has a nice ring to it but has no solid meaning.

> 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.

I have no burden of proof to refute vague concepts that other people dream
up. The burden is on people who advocate them to flesh them out and support
them.

>> > 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.

Right, but until then we don't really need to give it much thought, I mean
what are the chances?

> Hypothetical
> thought-experiments are relevant in moral philosophy, there was nothing
> objectionable about the use to which I put this one.

If you mean the talking chimp, it has roughly the same value as the talking
plant. If the world were a different place than it is then we might think
and act differently, I agree.

> 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.

Don't be so thin-skinned, we can all be dense at given times, and can also
lose patience.