View Single Post
  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
Dutch Dutch is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 28, 1:26 pm, Dutch > wrote:


>> In attacking the essay moralstat99 he latches onto one word that he
>> thinks is poorly defined

>
> It's the crucial concept on which the whole argument rests, and
> nothing resembling an adequate explanation of the concept is given.


He defines "capability" as a subset of "capacity", being an ability that
is inherent but not operative. Just as a baby bird whose wings have not
yet developed has the inherent capability, but not the operative ability
to fly, so an infant has the inherent but non-operative abilities of
advanced cognition. A marginal human has the capability but it is
non-operative due to disability.

Explain what is inadequate about the above description. I'll tell you,
nothing. It is crystal clear. You're in a corner with no way out except
to acknowledge that the approach in this essay leads to a rebuttal of
the argument from marginal cases. You might disagree with the overall
approach the argument takes, or you might still argue that humans treat
animals cruelly on other grounds, but if you accept this approach you
ought to reassess the argument from marginal cases. That argument always
sounded intuitively phony to me, but moralsta99 expresses why in
rigorous form.