On Aug 7, 2:33 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> 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.
>

He never implied that all non-human animals should be lumped together.

>
>
> >> 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.
>

No, it does not. Viruses do not belong to the animal kingdom, it's
borderline whether they are even organisms. They are certainly not
sentient, let alone "subjects-of-a-life". Obviously to ask "do we
place the same value on a virus as we do a chimpanzee" is absurd,
Regan's not committed to any such thing. He's quite right to refer her
to his work where he gives a detailed discussion of the issue of where
to draw the line.

>
>
> >> 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.
>

In his speech he emphasized certain aspects of his work rather than
others.

>
>
> >> 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.
>

False.

> > 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.
>

Well, for what it's worth, I lose respect for you when you're rude and
patronizing too.

>
>
> >> 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.

That would be great.