Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 15, 5:55 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> I've explained why the burden of proof is on those who would deny
>>> equal consideration to animals.
>> Burden of proof is the responsibility of anyone who seeks to have an
>> opinion accepted by others. There is not one burden that is held only on
>> one side of a question. Also, you can't possibly seriously believe that
>> "equal consideration for animals" is axiomatic. For starters, it is a
>> revolutionary idea, and on the face of it it is extremely unintuitive,
>> but even stipulating that it does not mean what it appears to mean as
>> you say, you must see that you at the very least have the burden to
>> explain it. Furthermore, any explanation that employs vague terms like
>> "relevantly similar interests" must also explain them. Then you must
>> explain all the apparent violations of the principle in the lives of
>> people who expound it. You have barely scratched the surface of any of
>> those responsibilities.
>>
>
> It's really very simple. If you're going to judge two cases
> differently, you've got to show that there's a morally relevant
> difference between them. That's really all it amounts to. Is species
> in itself a morally relevant difference? Well, you show me why. If you
> agree that species in itself is not a morally relevant difference,
> then you've conceded my point.

Moralstat99 answers that question. It's not "species in itself", it is
that members of the human species stand alone in demonstrating the
capability for moral agency.


> "Relevantly similar interests" means
> "similar, in a sense relevant to morality".

Changing the order of the words is not an explanation.


It's a lot less vague than
> your notion of "capability".

Nonsense, it is exceedingly nebulous, while capability is not vague in
the least. An acorn contains the capability to become an oak tree, it
lacks the capability to ever produce bananas. A human infant possesses
the capability to become a rational, thinking moral agent, a chick does not.


>
> As to the question of what practical consequences this would have and
> whether I'm living up to them, well, I plan to write some stuff
> exploring that further, but really, the question of how I behave is
> irrelevant.

That depends. If your goal is to imagine a "perfect world" unrelated to
the realities and constraints of the world in which we live then I
agree. If your goal is to create a working moral framework which fits in
the world and defines how we really act and think and what we can aspire
to in our actual lives, then it is very relevant. The latter is my area
of interest.


>> > You're maintaining that the burden of
>>
>>> proof is on those who advocate equal consideration for animals,
>> Only if you expect anyone to accept it.
>>
>> and
>>
>>> you're also maintaining that the burden of proof was on those who
>>> advodated equal consideration for members of other races, but you
>>> haven't explained how the latter burden of proof could have been met,
>>> because you haven't got any idea how. You're just assuming that it
>>> somehow was without any real evidence. You're not subjecting your own
>>> view to critical examination. You haven't shown how your view of the
>>> matter is more defensible and coherent than my view.
>> That's your argument? "You can prove your view is coherent either,
>> therefore mine is just as good"? Surely you can do better than that.
>> hell I could do better, and I think the principle is hogwash.
>>
>
> No. I've given the argument many times. It's a widely-discussed
> argument and all scholars in the field agree that it needs engaging
> with,

Don't move the goalposts, sophist. I criticized your statement "you
can't show that your view is more coherent than my view" as being
childish and irrelevant. Scholars my hairy ass, what a drip you can be.


including the author of that essay you like so much,

These repeated sly references to the fact that I like this essay are
gratuitous and irrelevant. You should like it a lot more than you let
on. It is spectacularly logical, Mr Math.


I've given
> a quote twice which clearly indicates that.
>
> Here's what I wrote to Ball elsewhere in this thread.
>
> "Let's go over it again, shall we?
>
> (1) The formal principle of justice, from Aristotle's "Nicomachean
> Ethics". Treat like cases as like. If you make different judgements
> about two cases, you've got to show that there's a morally relevant
> difference between them. Universally accepted by moral philosophers.
> By your own account, if you want to overturn it the burden of proof
> is
> on you.

The burden has been met, in Moralstat99

> (2) So if we maintain that it's okay to treat nonhuman animals a
> certain way but not okay to do the same thing to cognitively impaired
> humans, there's an obligation to point out a morally relevant
> difference, which hasn't been met. In other words, there's a
> presumption in favour of equal consideration of relevantly similar
> interests which hasn't been overturned.

Yes it has, in Moralstat99, you have read it, and you have "deferred"
submitting your response until you "publish a paper" on it. drip

>
>
> If the formal principle of justice is accepted, this argument has got
> to be engaged with and it hasn't. You say we shouldn't accept the
> formal principle of justice. No ethicist agrees with you. By your own
> account, the burden of proof is on you why we should reject the
> formal
> principle of justice.

We haven't, we have met the challenge, I challenge you to rebut the
refutation of the AMC, here and now. Don't wait to "publish" something,
see if it flies here.

>
> Furthermore, if we do reject the formal principle of justice, and if
> we also assume that the burden of proof is always on those who are in
> the minority, then I maintain there's no satisfactory way to account
> for how the abolitionists could have met their burden of
> justification
> for the abolition of slavery.

Rubbish. You have the OPPORTUNITY to make a positive case for your point
of view, you have not. In addition, the AMC has been rebutted and you
have failed to respond, spectacularly.


> They couldn't have done it without a
> presumption in favour of equal consideration. You say they could and
> did and you know how they did it, but it's all talk. Show us how they
> did it."
>
> There it is. That's the argument, together with an explanation of why
> Ball's criticisms of it are inadequate.

You still haven't done anything but repeat your demand that others bear
the burden of proof, despite the fact that the burden has been accepted
and discharged, and you have failed to respond. If you were thinking
like a scientist there would be bells going off in your head like
Westminster Abbey, yet you can't hear them.