"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jun 19, 12:51 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in
>>
>> > On Jun 18, 7:31 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> > Why? Is the burden of proof on you to show that the interests of
>> >> > black
>> >> > people shouldn't be ignored? How do you propose to meet that burden
>> >> > of
>> >> > proof?
>>
>> >> I'm sure negros are impressed that you are comparing their human
>> >> rights
>> >> with
>> >> chickens.
>>
>> > Well, you tell me where the analogy breaks down.
>>
>> There is no plausible similarity between chickens and humans that would
>> compel us to treat them similarly.
>
> You're missing the point. I am not advocating that humans and chickens
> be treated similarly - I am not advocating that we try to teach
> chickens mathematics, for example, or give them the right to vote.

That's a strawman, I never suggested that is what was meant by "similar".

> Equal consideration of their interests with that which we would give
> the relevantly similar interests of a human does not entail that we
> treat them similarly to typical humans.

Say what it *is*, not what it is *not*. Define "relevantly similar
interests" as it applies to humans and chickens. Get beyond theory and into
application.

> When you say "There are
> distinctions between typical humans and chickens, therefore we are
> justified in treating them differently" you're basically conceding my
> point: discrimination requires justification by means of a morally
> relevant difference.

I never argued that we should act indiscriminately, and I'm not conceding
the argument from marginal cases, if that is what you are trying to suggest.

> There are distinctions between typical humans and
> chickens which do justify us in treating them differently, but the
> point that we should give equal consideration to their interests with
> that which we would give to the relevantly similar interests of a
> human remains, and in *this* respect the situation is analogous with
> the requirement to give equal consideration to the relevantly similar
> interests of people with fair skin and people with dark skin.

It's only analagous in the most extreme broad understanding of the word
discrimination. In real terms there is as much similarity between a human
and a chicken as there is between a chicken and a beetle. Moralstat99.doc
makes this point effectively.

If
> people with dark skin were on average significantly less intelligent
> than us, as used to be widely believed, that would entail some
> differences in how we treat them - there would be certain forms of
> advanced education which would be appropriate for them less often, for
> example, and certain forms of employment which would be appropriate
> for them less often. The general point that their relevantly similar
> interests should be given equal consideration would still remain, even
> if this claim were correct. Getting people to change their beliefs
> that people with dark skin were less intelligent no doubt provided
> some welcome help to the cause of getting them better treatment, but
> strictly speaking the case for giving them equal consideration was
> unaffected by this factual issue. In this respect, the situations are
> analogous. You have not undermined this analogy.

You have failed to connect the dots. The only morally relevant
characteristic of a chicken is its ability to suffer pain and deprivation.
Accordingly, we are obliged to take measures to alleviate those effects in
animals in our care. Which other "morally relevant characteristics" do you
claim chickens possess?


>> The only similarity is that morally
>> significant is that chickens can also experience suffering, therefore we
>> ought to alleviate that suffering. But that is a characteristic of
>> chickens,
>> the relation to human sensitivity to pain is really immaterial.

I see that I already made this point, but you missed it.

>> > Sure you can say,
>> > negroes have similar cognitive capacities to typical Caucasian humans
>>
>> Not similar, equal, identical.
>>
>> > and chickens don't, but that's basically conceding my point, inasmuch
>> > as you're making an effort to meet the burden of proof.
>>
>> My attempts to explain why your analogy is invalid in no way relieve you
>> of
>> the burden to show that it is valid.
>
> Your attempts to undermine the analogy miss the point, that is what I
> am trying to explain to you.

You are not making a valid point. You are asserting that relevant similarity
exists without defining it.