Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-04-2012, 05:03 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

Why *should* humans extend equal moral consideration to non-human
animals? More to the point: why should they be *obliged* to do so?

No reason at all.

  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-04-2012, 05:21 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/9/2012 9:03 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
Why *should* humans extend equal moral consideration to non-human
animals? More to the point: why should they be *obliged* to do so?

No reason at all.


The problem, as has been amply demonstrated, is that "ar" takes as a
basic axiomatic assumption the very thing they must demonstrate, and so
it fails to demonstrate what it must. "ar" simply *assumes* that
animals must be shown equal moral consideration, and then invalidly
demands that opponents show why they shouldn't be. It's a failure.
"ar" must demonstrate *why* animals must be shown equal moral
consideration, and to date they've never been able to do so.
  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-04-2012, 06:59 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it


"George Plimpton" wrote
On 4/9/2012 9:03 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
Why *should* humans extend equal moral consideration to non-human
animals? More to the point: why should they be *obliged* to do so?

No reason at all.


The problem, as has been amply demonstrated, is that "ar" takes as a
basic axiomatic assumption the very thing they must demonstrate, and so
it fails to demonstrate what it must. "ar" simply *assumes* that
animals must be shown equal moral consideration, and then invalidly
demands that opponents show why they shouldn't be. It's a failure.
"ar" must demonstrate *why* animals must be shown equal moral
consideration, and to date they've never been able to do so.


They never will, because its impossible.
  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-04-2012, 07:05 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/9/2012 10:59 PM, Dutch wrote:

"George Plimpton" wrote
On 4/9/2012 9:03 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
Why *should* humans extend equal moral consideration to non-human
animals? More to the point: why should they be *obliged* to do so?

No reason at all.


The problem, as has been amply demonstrated, is that "ar" takes as a
basic axiomatic assumption the very thing they must demonstrate, and
so it fails to demonstrate what it must. "ar" simply *assumes* that
animals must be shown equal moral consideration, and then invalidly
demands that opponents show why they shouldn't be. It's a failure.
"ar" must demonstrate *why* animals must be shown equal moral
consideration, and to date they've never been able to do so.


They never will, because its impossible.


I believe they can't do it, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
However, when one starts by assuming the very thing one must prove, that
does nothing at all to advance the cause.
  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-04-2012, 07:14 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

"George Plimpton" wrote in message
...
On 4/9/2012 10:59 PM, Dutch wrote:

"George Plimpton" wrote
On 4/9/2012 9:03 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
Why *should* humans extend equal moral consideration to non-human
animals? More to the point: why should they be *obliged* to do so?

No reason at all.

The problem, as has been amply demonstrated, is that "ar" takes as a
basic axiomatic assumption the very thing they must demonstrate, and
so it fails to demonstrate what it must. "ar" simply *assumes* that
animals must be shown equal moral consideration, and then invalidly
demands that opponents show why they shouldn't be. It's a failure.
"ar" must demonstrate *why* animals must be shown equal moral
consideration, and to date they've never been able to do so.


They never will, because its impossible.


I believe they can't do it, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
However, when one starts by assuming the very thing one must prove, that
does nothing at all to advance the cause.


Its physically impossible, the environment around us is thick with animal
life. The only way to begin to extend consideration is to be selective, say
by size, and that itself is already speciesist.




  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-04-2012, 08:35 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 9, 10:41*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/9/2012 12:04 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 9, 6:42 pm, George *wrote:
On 4/9/2012 9:15 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 9, 4:31 pm, George * *wrote:
On 4/8/2012 11:43 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 9, 6:44 am, George * * *wrote:
On 4/8/2012 9:00 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 8, 7:06 pm, wrote:
"Animal rights activists" - actually, most are "passivists", doing
nothing more than talk - commonly invoke "speciesism" to try to explain
why human use of animals is wrong. *This is meaningless. *First of all,
all species are "speciesist": *the members of all species pursue their
interests, as individual entities and as members of their species, with
no regard for the interests of other species.


Some nonhuman animals do show concern for the interests of members of
other species, and in any case there is no good reason why we should
use the behaviour of nonhuman animals as a moral guide.


No other species show *moral* concern for interests of other species'
members.


The point of the post is that those who decry "speciesism" are relying
on it to say that humans should not engage in it.


No, they are not.


Yes, they are. *You are requiring humans to behave a particular way due
to their species. *That's "speciesism" (an ugly, contrived word, in fact
not even a real word at all, as every spell-checker in existence
demonstrates by flagging it as not a word.)


No, they're not requiring that humans behave a particular way due to
their species. Saying that only moral agents have moral obligations is
not speciesism.


That's not what you're doing.


Why not?


You tell us what your motive is.


I don't understand this.











The "ar" passivists
cannot give a coherent explanation of why "speciesism" is wrong, except
by invoking it themselves. *Only humans are capable of conceiving of the
interests of members of other species. *To say that we /must/ is itself
"speciesist."


It's not.


It is.


You obviously don't understand what speciesism is.


I do understand full well what it is. *In fact, it's sophistry.


Secondly, the only way the passivists attempt to show that it's wrong is
by comparison with other "isms" that they claim, without explanation,
are inherently and "obviously" wrong: *racism, sexism, "heterosexism",
etc. *This comparison is cynical and dishonest. *First, a discussion of
*why* racism and sexism are (or might be) wrong quickly reveals that
they comprise negative thoughts and actions against people of the same
species who share the same morally relevant characteristics as those who
are doing the discriminating. *A person's race or sex has no bearing on
his ability to participate in the moral community of humanity.


There are plenty of intellectually disabled humans who cannot
participate in the moral comunnity of humanity to


"marginal cases" doesn't work. *It's useless.


Why not?


I've explained that to you before, too. *The argument from species
normality defeats it, among other things.


The argument from species normality is flawed.


No, it isn't. *It fully defeats the fake argument from marginal cases.


Wrong.


Nope; right.


What exactly are the premises of the argument from species normality?

Another way the bogus "marginal cases" argument is queered is by
pointing out that rather than elevate the moral consideration given to
animals, it would tend to lessen that given to the marginal cases.


It would probably do both.

You just don't have a sound argument against "speciesism".


The burden of proof is on the *defender* of speciesism. You don't have
a sound argument in *favour* of speciesism.

There never
was one - that's why so much of the blabber about it is spent trying to
tie it to other "isms" to which it is not comparable, rather than
leaving that crap out and showing what's wrong with it /per se/.


  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-04-2012, 08:37 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 9, 10:54*pm, [email protected] wrote:
On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 10:06:34 -0700, wrote:
"Animal rights activists" - actually, most are "passivists", doing
nothing more than talk - commonly invoke "speciesism" to try to explain
why human use of animals is wrong. *This is meaningless. *First of all,
all species are "speciesist": *the members of all species pursue their
interests, as individual entities and as members of their species, with
no regard for the interests of other species.


* * That's for sure. If humans were not speciesist we could no longer survive
since rodents, bugs and germs would eventually wipe us out. Early humans also
would not have been able to defend themselves from predators if they didn't care
more for themselves than they do for the predators.
. . .

The passivists cannot make a case as to *why* the interests of members
of other species ought to be given the same moral weight as the
interests of members of our own species.


* * Someone who honestly felt that way would be insane and a danger to society.
They would feel no worse about hitting a child with their car than they would a
snake, which would truly be insane from my pov.


That does not follow.
  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-04-2012, 02:50 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/10/2012 12:35 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 9, 10:41 pm, George wrote:
On 4/9/2012 12:04 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 9, 6:42 pm, George wrote:
On 4/9/2012 9:15 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 9, 4:31 pm, George wrote:
On 4/8/2012 11:43 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 9, 6:44 am, George wrote:
On 4/8/2012 9:00 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 8, 7:06 pm, wrote:
"Animal rights activists" - actually, most are "passivists", doing
nothing more than talk - commonly invoke "speciesism" to try to explain
why human use of animals is wrong. This is meaningless. First of all,
all species are "speciesist": the members of all species pursue their
interests, as individual entities and as members of their species, with
no regard for the interests of other species.


Some nonhuman animals do show concern for the interests of members of
other species, and in any case there is no good reason why we should
use the behaviour of nonhuman animals as a moral guide.


No other species show *moral* concern for interests of other species'
members.


The point of the post is that those who decry "speciesism" are relying
on it to say that humans should not engage in it.


No, they are not.


Yes, they are. You are requiring humans to behave a particular way due
to their species. That's "speciesism" (an ugly, contrived word, in fact
not even a real word at all, as every spell-checker in existence
demonstrates by flagging it as not a word.)


No, they're not requiring that humans behave a particular way due to
their species. Saying that only moral agents have moral obligations is
not speciesism.


That's not what you're doing.


Why not?


You tell us what your motive is.


I don't understand this.











The "ar" passivists
cannot give a coherent explanation of why "speciesism" is wrong, except
by invoking it themselves. Only humans are capable of conceiving of the
interests of members of other species. To say that we /must/ is itself
"speciesist."


It's not.


It is.


You obviously don't understand what speciesism is.


I do understand full well what it is. In fact, it's sophistry.


Secondly, the only way the passivists attempt to show that it's wrong is
by comparison with other "isms" that they claim, without explanation,
are inherently and "obviously" wrong: racism, sexism, "heterosexism",
etc. This comparison is cynical and dishonest. First, a discussion of
*why* racism and sexism are (or might be) wrong quickly reveals that
they comprise negative thoughts and actions against people of the same
species who share the same morally relevant characteristics as those who
are doing the discriminating. A person's race or sex has no bearing on
his ability to participate in the moral community of humanity.


There are plenty of intellectually disabled humans who cannot
participate in the moral comunnity of humanity to


"marginal cases" doesn't work. It's useless.


Why not?


I've explained that to you before, too. The argument from species
normality defeats it, among other things.


The argument from species normality is flawed.


No, it isn't. It fully defeats the fake argument from marginal cases.


Wrong.


Nope; right.


What exactly are the premises of the argument from species normality?


Above you wrote, "The argument from species normality is flawed." Do
you mean to say you wrote that without knowing what the premises are?
That seems very reckless and irresponsible.


Another way the bogus "marginal cases" argument is queered is by
pointing out that rather than elevate the moral consideration given to
animals, it would tend to lessen that given to the marginal cases.


It would probably do both.


No.


You just don't have a sound argument against "speciesism".


The burden of proof is on the *defender* of speciesism.


The burden of proof is on the "ar" extremists who claim non-human
animals deserve equal moral consideration.
  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-04-2012, 08:02 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 10, 6:14*am, "Dutch" wrote:
"George Plimpton" wrote in message

...









On 4/9/2012 10:59 PM, Dutch wrote:


"George Plimpton" wrote
On 4/9/2012 9:03 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
Why *should* humans extend equal moral consideration to non-human
animals? More to the point: why should they be *obliged* to do so?


No reason at all.


The problem, as has been amply demonstrated, is that "ar" takes as a
basic axiomatic assumption the very thing they must demonstrate, and
so it fails to demonstrate what it must. "ar" simply *assumes* that
animals must be shown equal moral consideration, and then invalidly
demands that opponents show why they shouldn't be. It's a failure.
"ar" must demonstrate *why* animals must be shown equal moral
consideration, and to date they've never been able to do so.


They never will, because its impossible.


I believe they can't do it, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
However, when one starts by assuming the very thing one must prove, that
does nothing at all to advance the cause.


Its physically impossible, the environment around us is thick with animal
life. The only way to begin to extend consideration is to be selective, say
by size, and that itself is already speciesist.


Do animals object to the immorality of human kind? and I really did
think when
reading that post that comments like 'the evironment is thick with
animal
life' is tantamount to saying that the person ho wrote it simply has
lost sensitivity
and crucial understanding between living things. Lots of women are
often accused
of not being able to make up her mind! There are lots of small
irrelevent differences
between people who do consider themselves 'racially pure' wouldn't you
agree it
seems to be that if they didn't mix their genes up sometimes then one
disease
or virus could kill all members of the same 'preferential variety'
very soon. Those
tiny differences do matter, but it would be inexact to call them
racial.
  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-04-2012, 08:26 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it



"Neon" wrote in message
...
On Apr 10, 6:14 am, "Dutch" wrote:
"George Plimpton" wrote in message

...









On 4/9/2012 10:59 PM, Dutch wrote:


"George Plimpton" wrote
On 4/9/2012 9:03 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
Why *should* humans extend equal moral consideration to non-human
animals? More to the point: why should they be *obliged* to do so?


No reason at all.


The problem, as has been amply demonstrated, is that "ar" takes as a
basic axiomatic assumption the very thing they must demonstrate, and
so it fails to demonstrate what it must. "ar" simply *assumes* that
animals must be shown equal moral consideration, and then invalidly
demands that opponents show why they shouldn't be. It's a failure.
"ar" must demonstrate *why* animals must be shown equal moral
consideration, and to date they've never been able to do so.


They never will, because its impossible.


I believe they can't do it, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
However, when one starts by assuming the very thing one must prove,
that
does nothing at all to advance the cause.


Its physically impossible, the environment around us is thick with animal
life. The only way to begin to extend consideration is to be selective,
say
by size, and that itself is already speciesist.


Do animals object to the immorality of human kind? and I really did
think when
reading that post that comments like 'the evironment is thick with
animal
life' is tantamount to saying that the person ho wrote it simply has
lost sensitivity
and crucial understanding between living things. Lots of women are
often accused
of not being able to make up her mind! There are lots of small
irrelevent differences
between people who do consider themselves 'racially pure' wouldn't you
agree it
seems to be that if they didn't mix their genes up sometimes then one
disease
or virus could kill all members of the same 'preferential variety'
very soon. Those
tiny differences do matter, but it would be inexact to call them
racial.


I have no idea what you just said.




  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-04-2012, 09:16 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/10/2012 12:26 PM, Dutch wrote:


"Neon" wrote in message
...
On Apr 10, 6:14 am, "Dutch" wrote:
"George Plimpton" wrote in message

...









On 4/9/2012 10:59 PM, Dutch wrote:

"George Plimpton" wrote
On 4/9/2012 9:03 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
Why *should* humans extend equal moral consideration to non-human
animals? More to the point: why should they be *obliged* to do so?

No reason at all.

The problem, as has been amply demonstrated, is that "ar" takes as a
basic axiomatic assumption the very thing they must demonstrate, and
so it fails to demonstrate what it must. "ar" simply *assumes* that
animals must be shown equal moral consideration, and then invalidly
demands that opponents show why they shouldn't be. It's a failure.
"ar" must demonstrate *why* animals must be shown equal moral
consideration, and to date they've never been able to do so.

They never will, because its impossible.

I believe they can't do it, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
However, when one starts by assuming the very thing one must prove,
that
does nothing at all to advance the cause.

Its physically impossible, the environment around us is thick with
animal
life. The only way to begin to extend consideration is to be
selective, say
by size, and that itself is already speciesist.


Do animals object to the immorality of human kind? and I really did
think when
reading that post that comments like 'the evironment is thick with
animal
life' is tantamount to saying that the person ho wrote it simply has
lost sensitivity
and crucial understanding between living things. Lots of women are
often accused
of not being able to make up her mind! There are lots of small
irrelevent differences
between people who do consider themselves 'racially pure' wouldn't you
agree it
seems to be that if they didn't mix their genes up sometimes then one
disease
or virus could kill all members of the same 'preferential variety'
very soon. Those
tiny differences do matter, but it would be inexact to call them
racial.


I have no idea what you just said.


I have no doubt - truly *zero* doubt - that he read the post in, and
then posted his reply to, alt.philosophy. His writing style is the norm
there - dense, turgid, impenetrable sophism. You'd probably have better
luck trying to read a translation of Nietzsche into Swahili.
  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-04-2012, 11:54 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 10, 3:50*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/10/2012 12:35 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 9, 10:41 pm, George *wrote:
On 4/9/2012 12:04 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 9, 6:42 pm, George * *wrote:
On 4/9/2012 9:15 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 9, 4:31 pm, George * * *wrote:
On 4/8/2012 11:43 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 9, 6:44 am, George * * * *wrote:
On 4/8/2012 9:00 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 8, 7:06 pm, wrote:
"Animal rights activists" - actually, most are "passivists", doing
nothing more than talk - commonly invoke "speciesism" to try to explain
why human use of animals is wrong. *This is meaningless. *First of all,
all species are "speciesist": *the members of all species pursue their
interests, as individual entities and as members of their species, with
no regard for the interests of other species.


Some nonhuman animals do show concern for the interests of members of
other species, and in any case there is no good reason why we should
use the behaviour of nonhuman animals as a moral guide.


No other species show *moral* concern for interests of other species'
members.


The point of the post is that those who decry "speciesism" are relying
on it to say that humans should not engage in it.


No, they are not.


Yes, they are. *You are requiring humans to behave a particular way due
to their species. *That's "speciesism" (an ugly, contrived word, in fact
not even a real word at all, as every spell-checker in existence
demonstrates by flagging it as not a word.)


No, they're not requiring that humans behave a particular way due to
their species. Saying that only moral agents have moral obligations is
not speciesism.


That's not what you're doing.


Why not?


You tell us what your motive is.


I don't understand this.


The "ar" passivists
cannot give a coherent explanation of why "speciesism" is wrong, except
by invoking it themselves. *Only humans are capable of conceiving of the
interests of members of other species. *To say that we /must/ is itself
"speciesist."


It's not.


It is.


You obviously don't understand what speciesism is.


I do understand full well what it is. *In fact, it's sophistry.


Secondly, the only way the passivists attempt to show that it's wrong is
by comparison with other "isms" that they claim, without explanation,
are inherently and "obviously" wrong: *racism, sexism, "heterosexism",
etc. *This comparison is cynical and dishonest. *First, a discussion of
*why* racism and sexism are (or might be) wrong quickly reveals that
they comprise negative thoughts and actions against people of the same
species who share the same morally relevant characteristics as those who
are doing the discriminating. *A person's race or sex has no bearing on
his ability to participate in the moral community of humanity.


There are plenty of intellectually disabled humans who cannot
participate in the moral comunnity of humanity to


"marginal cases" doesn't work. *It's useless.


Why not?


I've explained that to you before, too. *The argument from species
normality defeats it, among other things.


The argument from species normality is flawed.


No, it isn't. *It fully defeats the fake argument from marginal cases.


Wrong.


Nope; right.


What exactly are the premises of the argument from species normality?


Above you wrote, "The argument from species normality is flawed." *Do
you mean to say you wrote that without knowing what the premises are?
That seems very reckless and irresponsible.


I believe that one of the premises of the argument from species
normality is that the moral consideration an individual should get is
determined by what characteristics are typical for that individual's
species, and I believe that it is possible to construct thought-
experiments which show this premise to be problematic. But I wanted to
give you a chance to state the argument in its strongest form.

Another way the bogus "marginal cases" argument is queered is by
pointing out that rather than elevate the moral consideration given to
animals, it would tend to lessen that given to the marginal cases.


It would probably do both.


No.

You just don't have a sound argument against "speciesism".


The burden of proof is on the *defender* of speciesism.


The burden of proof is on the "ar" extremists who claim non-human
animals deserve equal moral consideration.


Wrong. If you think that you belong to a special group whose interests
deserve more consideration than those of other groups, the burden is
on you to explain why.
  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-04-2012, 01:16 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/10/2012 3:54 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 10, 3:50 pm, George wrote:
On 4/10/2012 12:35 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 9, 10:41 pm, George wrote:
On 4/9/2012 12:04 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 9, 6:42 pm, George wrote:
On 4/9/2012 9:15 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 9, 4:31 pm, George wrote:
On 4/8/2012 11:43 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 9, 6:44 am, George wrote:
On 4/8/2012 9:00 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 8, 7:06 pm, wrote:
"Animal rights activists" - actually, most are "passivists", doing
nothing more than talk - commonly invoke "speciesism" to try to explain
why human use of animals is wrong. This is meaningless. First of all,
all species are "speciesist": the members of all species pursue their
interests, as individual entities and as members of their species, with
no regard for the interests of other species.


Some nonhuman animals do show concern for the interests of members of
other species, and in any case there is no good reason why we should
use the behaviour of nonhuman animals as a moral guide.


No other species show *moral* concern for interests of other species'
members.


The point of the post is that those who decry "speciesism" are relying
on it to say that humans should not engage in it.


No, they are not.


Yes, they are. You are requiring humans to behave a particular way due
to their species. That's "speciesism" (an ugly, contrived word, in fact
not even a real word at all, as every spell-checker in existence
demonstrates by flagging it as not a word.)


No, they're not requiring that humans behave a particular way due to
their species. Saying that only moral agents have moral obligations is
not speciesism.


That's not what you're doing.


Why not?


You tell us what your motive is.


I don't understand this.


Yes, you do.


The "ar" passivists
cannot give a coherent explanation of why "speciesism" is wrong, except
by invoking it themselves. Only humans are capable of conceiving of the
interests of members of other species. To say that we /must/ is itself
"speciesist."


It's not.


It is.


You obviously don't understand what speciesism is.


I do understand full well what it is. In fact, it's sophistry.


Secondly, the only way the passivists attempt to show that it's wrong is
by comparison with other "isms" that they claim, without explanation,
are inherently and "obviously" wrong: racism, sexism, "heterosexism",
etc. This comparison is cynical and dishonest. First, a discussion of
*why* racism and sexism are (or might be) wrong quickly reveals that
they comprise negative thoughts and actions against people of the same
species who share the same morally relevant characteristics as those who
are doing the discriminating. A person's race or sex has no bearing on
his ability to participate in the moral community of humanity.


There are plenty of intellectually disabled humans who cannot
participate in the moral comunnity of humanity to


"marginal cases" doesn't work. It's useless.


Why not?


I've explained that to you before, too. The argument from species
normality defeats it, among other things.


The argument from species normality is flawed.


No, it isn't. It fully defeats the fake argument from marginal cases.


Wrong.


Nope; right.


What exactly are the premises of the argument from species normality?


Above you wrote, "The argument from species normality is flawed." Do
you mean to say you wrote that without knowing what the premises are?
That seems very reckless and irresponsible.


I believe that one of the premises of the argument from species
normality is that the moral consideration an individual should get is
determined by what characteristics are typical for that individual's
species, and I believe that it is possible to construct thought-
experiments which show this premise to be problematic.


Have a go at it.


Another way the bogus "marginal cases" argument is queered is by
pointing out that rather than elevate the moral consideration given to
animals, it would tend to lessen that given to the marginal cases.


It would probably do both.


No.

You just don't have a sound argument against "speciesism".


The burden of proof is on the *defender* of speciesism.


The burden of proof is on the "ar" extremists who claim non-human
animals deserve equal moral consideration.


Wrong. If you think that you belong to a special group whose interests
deserve more consideration than those of other groups, the burden is
on you to explain why.


Nope. As the overwhelming majority - 99% + - of people believe that it
is correct to give more consideration to the interests of members of
their species than to members of other species, you're going to have to
make a case for why they're wrong. The burden is on you. The
presumption that our interests should receive greater consideration is
the champion; your position is the challenger. The challenger must
defeat the champion, or the champion remains champion by default.
That's how it works.

The burden is on you, and you can't meet it - you merely assume the very
thing you must demonstrate. You lose.
  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-04-2012, 06:20 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

I am convinced that both the notion of rights, and a *conscious* sense
of consideration of others' interests, are products of human evolution
that had the effect of ensuring the survival of the species. As such,
there is no valid philosophical reason either one *ought* to be extended
to animals. As both evolved as part of our - humans' - survival
"strategy", there is no compelling philosophical reason to extend them
to animals, *unless* doing so would enhance our survival. I don't
believe a compelling case can be made for either one - neither seeing
animals as rights holders, nor giving their interests equal
consideration to ours, would do a thing to enhance either the
probability or the quality of continued human existence.
  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-04-2012, 06:49 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Why (partially) the argument from marginal cases fails

Humans, except for marginal cases themselves, feel sorrow when
contemplating a marginal case. If a friend or family member experiences
a trauma or illness that puts him permanently into a vegetative state or
another severely diminished capacity, humans feel terrible about it, and
the feeling doesn't go away.

No one looks at or in any way contemplates pigs and feels bad that they
can't read or do arithmetic, can't appreciate classical music, can't
tell or understand jokes. It doesn't mean anything - no moral or
philosophical or emotional dimension to it at all. There *is* a moral
and philosophical and especially an emotional dimension to our awareness
that marginal humans cannot fully participate in human society and
culture. We feel there is something *wrong*, something *bad*, if humans
suffer from a diminished capacity that prevents them from participating
fully in the human community, but we don't feel anything at all like
that about *all* non-human animals lacking that capacity; nor *should*
we feel the same way about animals lacking that capacity. Their
diminished capacity, relative to ours, has no meaning for any of them,
and there is no reason for it to have any meaning for us, so it has no
meaning.

The contrast between our innate sense of compassion for marginal or
diminished-capacity humans, and our utter lack of compassion or sorrow
over animals' similar lack of capacity, illustrates why the AMC fails.
A normal pig's lack of normal human mental, emotional and moral capacity
elicits no feelings in us at all, nor should it; a human who permanently
lacks normal human mental, emotional and moral capacity is seen as a
tragedy, and it is *right* that he is seen as such.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Irrational Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts) proves that"veganism" isn't about so-called "factory farms" at all Rudy Canoza[_8_] Vegan 0 19-08-2016 06:04 PM
"Speciesism" - a disgusting neologism, a specious criticim [email protected] Vegan 38 07-03-2014 08:20 PM
My 12" carbon steel wok shopping continues after the wrong item wassent by the rude lady from The Wokshop" Manda Ruby General Cooking 22 28-06-2010 10:19 PM
PING . . . "-a-" I think I know about your RED FRUIT SOUP!!!(spelled wrong, sorry!) Lynn from Fargo General Cooking 1 03-07-2009 11:45 PM
What's wrong with "mother" John LaBella Sourdough 5 21-08-2008 09:05 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:23 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017