Rupert wrote:
> 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.

She is responding to the rhetoric of his speech, which is based on the
simplistic premise that the world is divided into humans (the oppressor)
and non-humans (the oppressed) It's not her fault that he chooses to
make an impassioned speech which does not reflect his true beliefs.

>
>> 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.

But it follows from his speech which refers simply to humans and
non-human animals.

>
>> 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.

Perhaps, but not his speech.

>
>> 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,

He said almost nothing about any of their points except mocking a remark
made by one speaker.

> and what he said was pretty fair comment.

It was rude and patronizing. It made him look weak.

> He could have been more polite and respectful, but you're hardly in a
> position to criticize him about that.

He was in a position where he ought to be polite and respectful, he
chose not to be, to his discredit. I'm not a renown philosopher, just a
guy with an opinion on usenet.

>
>> 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.

Perhaps we could get hold of them.