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
  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-04-2012, 06:50 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 11, 2:16*am, George Plimpton wrote:
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.


Do you know the thought-experiment of the chimpanzee who can
understand advanced mathematics?









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.


No. There is a default presumption of equal consideration of interests
in ethics. If someone believes that they are a member of a special
group whose interests are entitled to more consideration the burden is
on them to establish that.

The burden is on you, and you can't meet it - you merely assume the very
thing you must demonstrate. *You lose.



  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-04-2012, 07:51 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 10:50 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 11, 2:16 am, George wrote:
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.


Do you know the thought-experiment of the chimpanzee who can
understand advanced mathematics?


Yes, of course. It's the case of freak intelligence. It fails, because
it is not symmetric with a marginal human case. The actuality of the
chimp with freak intelligence entails the potentiality of moral
considerability, but the non-actuality of normal human cognition in the
marginal human does *not* entail the non-potentiality of being a moral
agent. We see this clearly with humans who are only temporarily
incapacitated, or with children who mostly will develop to be moral agents.


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.


No.


Yes.


There is a default presumption of equal consideration of interests
in ethics.


For humans.
  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-04-2012, 12:46 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, 7:26*pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Neon" wrote in message

...









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


om...


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.


you answer correctly !
  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-04-2012, 05:27 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: 4
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/10/2012 10:50 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 11, 2:16 am, George wrote:
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.


Do you know the thought-experiment of the chimpanzee who can
understand advanced mathematics?









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.


No. There is a default presumption of equal consideration of interests
in ethics.


Who says so? Peter Singer? That's a position he advocates polemically.
How does he show that it ought to be considered the default? Who
agrees with him? Not Bonnie Steinbock.


If someone believes that they are a member of a special
group whose interests are entitled to more consideration the burden is
on them to establish that.

The burden is on you, and you can't meet it - you merely assume the very
thing you must demonstrate. You lose.



  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-04-2012, 06:39 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: 1,652
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:37:10 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
wrote:

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.


That it would be insane from my pov? Or that if they were not speciesist it
would apply to snakes as well as to whatever else, if anything, or
everything...?


  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-04-2012, 06:40 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 11, 6:27*pm, Donn Messenheimer
wrote:
On 4/10/2012 10:50 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 11, 2:16 am, George *wrote:
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.


Do you know the thought-experiment of the chimpanzee who can
understand advanced mathematics?


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.


No. There is a default presumption of equal consideration of interests
in ethics.


Who says so? *Peter Singer?


Peter Singer, and most other ethicists, whether they be in favour of
speciesism or no.

*That's a position he advocates polemically.
* How does he show that it ought to be considered the default? *Who
agrees with him? *Not Bonnie Steinbock.


Most ethicists would agree that equal consideration of interests is
the default starting position.







If someone believes that they are a member of a special
group whose interests are entitled to more consideration the burden is
on them to establish that.


The burden is on you, and you can't meet it - you merely assume the very
thing you must demonstrate. *You lose.


  #37 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-04-2012, 06:40 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 11, 8:51*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/10/2012 10:50 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 11, 2:16 am, George *wrote:
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.


Do you know the thought-experiment of the chimpanzee who can
understand advanced mathematics?


Yes, of course. *It's the case of freak intelligence. *It fails, because
it is not symmetric with a marginal human case. *The actuality of the
chimp with freak intelligence entails the potentiality of moral
considerability, but the non-actuality of normal human cognition in the
marginal human does *not* entail the non-potentiality of being a moral
agent. *We see this clearly with humans who are only temporarily
incapacitated, or with children who mostly will develop to be moral agents.


What do you mean by "potentiality"?









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.


No.


Yes.

There is a default presumption of equal consideration of interests
in ethics.


For humans.


  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-04-2012, 06:55 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: 4
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/11/2012 10:40 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 11, 6:27 pm, Donn
wrote:
On 4/10/2012 10:50 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 11, 2:16 am, George wrote:
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.


Do you know the thought-experiment of the chimpanzee who can
understand advanced mathematics?


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.


No. There is a default presumption of equal consideration of interests
in ethics.


Who says so? Peter Singer?


Peter Singer, and most other ethicists, whether they be in favour of
speciesism or no.

That's a position he advocates polemically.
How does he show that it ought to be considered the default? Who
agrees with him? Not Bonnie Steinbock.


Most ethicists would agree that equal consideration of interests is
the default starting position.


I don't believe you.
  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-04-2012, 07:37 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 4/11/2012 10:40 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 11, 8:51 am, George wrote:
On 4/10/2012 10:50 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 11, 2:16 am, George wrote:
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.


Do you know the thought-experiment of the chimpanzee who can
understand advanced mathematics?


Yes, of course. It's the case of freak intelligence. It fails, because
it is not symmetric with a marginal human case. The actuality of the
chimp with freak intelligence entails the potentiality of moral
considerability, but the non-actuality of normal human cognition in the
marginal human does *not* entail the non-potentiality of being a moral
agent. We see this clearly with humans who are only temporarily
incapacitated, or with children who mostly will develop to be moral agents.


What do you mean by "potentiality"?


Because humans are the unique class who are moral agents, then without
knowing anything else about a human being, you know at least that he has
the potential to be or to become a moral actor. Furthermore, even when
the actuality is that a human is not a moral actor, that doesn't mean he
isn't potentially one. This is obviously true of normal human infants,
people in a reversible coma, people under anesthesia, people who are
asleep, and others.

It is not membership /per se/ in the class of beings who as a matter of
species normality have the morally relevant trait that leads us to
include marginal humans and exclude all other animals; it is the
*meaning* of it, which is the potentiality to exercising those faculties.

There's another reason why the two marginal cases - freak-intelligent
chimp, comatose human - are not symmetric: we observe plenty of
marginal humans, most of whom develop or recover their faculty for moral
agency, but we have never observed a chimpanzee who can do mathematics
at a level that he ought to earn university admission, nor does anyone
reasonably expect we ever will.
  #40 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-04-2012, 11:23 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: 1,028
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

"Rupert" wrote
Most ethicists would agree that equal consideration of interests is
the default starting position.


For whom? My default starting position for consideration is my own
interests, followed by my immediate family including my pets, my community,
my country, mankind, higher level animals, rare plant species, lower level
animals, the planet, and the economy is implied in there somewhere.

The default starting position for every organism in existence is its own
interests, that is the way the world works.







  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-04-2012, 11:47 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 4/11/2012 3:23 PM, Dutch wrote:
"Rupert" wrote
Most ethicists would agree that equal consideration of interests is
the default starting position.


For whom? My default starting position for consideration is my own
interests, followed by my immediate family including my pets, my
community, my country, mankind, higher level animals, rare plant
species, lower level animals, the planet, and the economy is implied in
there somewhere.

The default starting position for every organism in existence is its own
interests, that is the way the world works.


That's right, and even when considering others' interests, one is still
considering one's own, and that's going to affect how you weight the
interests of others. I consider my son's interests ahead of my wife's,
my wife's ahead of my friends', my friends' ahead of my neighbors', and
so on. There comes a point at which I would consider my dog's interests
ahead of some humans' interests. If I have $100 and am faced with a
choice of taking my dog to the vet because she's ill, or donating to the
Haitian earthquake relief fund, I can tell you the Haitians are going to
be $100 short.
  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-04-2012, 04:46 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 11, 8:37*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/11/2012 10:40 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 11, 8:51 am, George *wrote:
On 4/10/2012 10:50 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 11, 2:16 am, George * *wrote:
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.


Do you know the thought-experiment of the chimpanzee who can
understand advanced mathematics?


Yes, of course. *It's the case of freak intelligence. *It fails, because
it is not symmetric with a marginal human case. *The actuality of the
chimp with freak intelligence entails the potentiality of moral
considerability, but the non-actuality of normal human cognition in the
marginal human does *not* entail the non-potentiality of being a moral
agent. *We see this clearly with humans who are only temporarily
incapacitated, or with children who mostly will develop to be moral agents.


What do you mean by "potentiality"?


Because humans are the unique class who are moral agents, then without
knowing anything else about a human being, you know at least that he has
the potential to be or to become a moral actor. *Furthermore, even when
the actuality is that a human is not a moral actor, that doesn't mean he
isn't potentially one. *This is obviously true of normal human infants,
people in a reversible coma, people under anesthesia, people who are
asleep, and others.


Again: what do you *mean* by "potential"?

It is not membership /per se/ in the class of beings who as a matter of
species normality have the morally relevant trait that leads us to
include marginal humans and exclude all other animals; it is the
*meaning* of it, which is the potentiality to exercising those faculties.

There's another reason why the two marginal cases - freak-intelligent
chimp, comatose human - are not symmetric: *we observe plenty of
marginal humans, most of whom develop or recover their faculty for moral
agency, but we have never observed a chimpanzee who can do mathematics
at a level that he ought to earn university admission, nor does anyone
reasonably expect we ever will.


  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-04-2012, 04:49 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 11, 7:55*pm, Donn Messenheimer
wrote:
On 4/11/2012 10:40 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 11, 6:27 pm, Donn
wrote:
On 4/10/2012 10:50 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 11, 2:16 am, George * *wrote:
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.


Do you know the thought-experiment of the chimpanzee who can
understand advanced mathematics?


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.


No. There is a default presumption of equal consideration of interests
in ethics.


Who says so? *Peter Singer?


Peter Singer, and most other ethicists, whether they be in favour of
speciesism or no.


* That's a position he advocates polemically.
* *How does he show that it ought to be considered the default? *Who
agrees with him? *Not Bonnie Steinbock.


Most ethicists would agree that equal consideration of interests is
the default starting position.


I don't believe you.


I'll see if I can find some references for you. I've asked a friend
who is doing a PhD in metaethics.
  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-04-2012, 04:53 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 12, 12:23*am, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

Most ethicists would agree that equal consideration of interests is
the default starting position.


For whom? My default starting position for consideration is my own
interests, followed by my immediate family including my pets, my community,
my country, mankind, higher level animals, rare plant species, lower level
animals, the planet, and the economy is implied in there somewhere.

The default starting position for every organism in existence is its own
interests, that is the way the world works.


That is something that requires defence from the moral point of view.
  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-04-2012, 04:53 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 4/11/2012 8:46 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 11, 8:37 pm, George wrote:
On 4/11/2012 10:40 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 11, 8:51 am, George wrote:
On 4/10/2012 10:50 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 11, 2:16 am, George wrote:
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.


Do you know the thought-experiment of the chimpanzee who can
understand advanced mathematics?


Yes, of course. It's the case of freak intelligence. It fails, because
it is not symmetric with a marginal human case. The actuality of the
chimp with freak intelligence entails the potentiality of moral
considerability, but the non-actuality of normal human cognition in the
marginal human does *not* entail the non-potentiality of being a moral
agent. We see this clearly with humans who are only temporarily
incapacitated, or with children who mostly will develop to be moral agents.


What do you mean by "potentiality"?


Because humans are the unique class who are moral agents, then without
knowing anything else about a human being, you know at least that he has
the potential to be or to become a moral actor. Furthermore, even when
the actuality is that a human is not a moral actor, that doesn't mean he
isn't potentially one. This is obviously true of normal human infants,
people in a reversible coma, people under anesthesia, people who are
asleep, and others.


Again: what do you *mean* by "potential"?


Stop wasting time. It's not a difficult word, and English is your
native language.


It is not membership /per se/ in the class of beings who as a matter of
species normality have the morally relevant trait that leads us to
include marginal humans and exclude all other animals; it is the
*meaning* of it, which is the potentiality to exercising those faculties.

There's another reason why the two marginal cases - freak-intelligent
chimp, comatose human - are not symmetric: we observe plenty of
marginal humans, most of whom develop or recover their faculty for moral
agency, but we have never observed a chimpanzee who can do mathematics
at a level that he ought to earn university admission, nor does anyone
reasonably expect we ever will.





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 02:44 AM.

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