On Jul 28, 1:40 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> 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.




Ahhhhh............so good to hear once again from Goo's little bum-boy
Baby Goo.







- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -