Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 28, 6:21 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> What would it take for the capability not to be there? This idea of
> the ability being somehow "inherent but not operative" is totally
> obscure to me. You either have an ability or you don't.

Do you understand having wings but not being able to fly? Do you
understand having the capability of speech but not being able to talk?
Advanced cognitive abilities are no different. None of the abilities an
ape displays are evident in young apes.

> I guess you're
> somehow alluding to the fact that the machinery which gives rise to
> the ability in normal contexts is all there.

You don't have to guess, I have made it abundantly clear what I mean.

> You might be able to give
> that idea a precise sense in some contexts, though you haven't done
> that yet.

Every example I have given does it.

> As I said before, that's a scientific research programme,
> not a matter of common sense. How much of the machinery needs to be
> there?

It's not "machinery" in the literal sense. This is hilarious you know,
your declaration of the "equal consideration principle" is about as
vague as one can possibly be, with no examples from real life being
given at all to clarify it, yet you proclaim it to be clear as a bell.
This idea is expressed in one word, one clear definition with any number
of clarifying examples, yet you reject it.

> How far is it allowed to be from being in working order?

That doesn't matter.

> And,
> anyway, what is supposed to be the morally big deal about the
> machinery being there?

The inherent capability is necessary for the operative ability to ever
be expressed. Morally, life dictates that we "draw lines" since there is
no practical way to avoid causing harm, therefore we use concepts like
sentience to rationalize the way we interact with the world. We all do
it. You dismiss the interests of some organisms as subservient to your
own based largely on some sentience-type criteria, as well as convenience.


>> Explain what is inadequate about the above description. I'll tell you,
>> nothing.
>
> Everything. You haven't given any indication of what having the
> capability consists in.

The way we determine if an organism has specific capabilities is by
observation. The primary clue is species.

>> It is crystal clear.
>
> If you think that then there's something seriously amiss with your
> standards of clarity.

Your standards of comprehension are what are lacking.

>
>> 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.
>
> Oh, get over yourself. This wasn't the way I reacted when you were
> bagging DeGrazia. I didn't have the arrogance to say "I've got you in
> a corner, there's no way out for you but to accept my position." No-
> one is that arrogant when presenting a serious argument. I patiently
> tried to explain how I understood the text to you.
>
> You haven't convinced me. That's the bottom line. I believe that you
> have not done anything significant by way of clarifying this notion of
> "capability", and I am quite certain that just about any academic
> philosopher reading this conversation would agree, including the
> author of that essay that you like so much. You can shoot your mouth
> off all you like about how you've got me in a corner, and I daresay
> you believe it, but it's not going to impress me and I don't think
> it's going to impress any other sensible person either.
>
>> 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.
>
> I'm happy to reassess the argument from marginal cases as soon as I
> understand this notion of "capability". The notion remains totally
> obscure for the moment, so I don't have an adequate reply to the
> argument from marginal cases.
>
>> That argument always
>> sounded intuitively phony to me, but moralsta99 expresses why in
>> rigorous form.
>
> Well, you can think that if you like.

Thanks for the permission to think what I want to think.

Suppose you were writing an
> essay for a philosophy professor whose judgement you respected, but
> who was skeptical about this argument. How would you go about
> explaining the crucial notion of "capability" to him? Do you really
> think he would find what you have said so far satisfactory? If you
> think that, you really have no clue about the standards of clarity and
> rigor which prevail in academic philosophy.

I realize that you desperately want to think of yourself as the
professor lecturing the rest of us, but get over yourself. If I had a
professor like you I would attempt to switch classes.