On Aug 6, 6:19 am, Dutch > wrote:
> pearl wrote:
> > What "valid points" doesn't he address
>
> He made no reference to the point the Mary Warnock makes that it makes
> no sense to lump all animals together as Regan does.

He doesn't, and he made the reasonable point that if she'd read his
work (as she claimed to have done) then she really ought to know that.

> Do we place the
> same value on a virus as we do a chimpanzee?

Obviously it's absurd to suggest that any such thing follows from
Regan's work. It's borderline whether viruses even count as living
things.

> Steven Rose also makes this
> point, that the most intuitive and widely held view of animals is that
> moral value is directly related to sentience/intelligence.

There's nothing wrong with that, and Regan's work can be seen as
within that approach too.

> Wetlesen's
> essay moralstat99 is built on this principle.

.... but doesn't adequately rebut the AMC.

> Regan spends half his
> rebuttal chirping ad hominems about the opponents of his ideas and very
> little addressing their points.

He did address their points, and what he said was pretty fair comment.
He could have been more polite and respectful, but you're hardly in a
position to criticize him about that.

> The people that uploaded the video, the
> Christian Science Monitor folks, also weight the whole thing heavily
> towards Regan by cutting out most of the opposing views.

Yes, it's a shame we couldn't hear more from his opponents' speeches.