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
  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-04-2012, 06:11 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 8:53 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 12, 12:23 am, wrote:
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.


Why?

  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-04-2012, 07:29 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

"Rupert" wrote in message
...
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.


You mean like you defended your assertion, by claiming that most ethicists
agree with you? Well I can't honestly say I've ever met an ethicist, but if
they think that way then they are different than every other person or
animal that I am aware of. No, you're wrong here, in fact your description
of your own moral calculations proves it. You have admitted that adjusting
your lifestyle to avoid causing harm to animals is secondary to maintaining
a suitable career and lifestyle for yourself, as it should be. I don't know
if you have ever see the comic Louis C.K. but he does a bit about his
beliefs about what is right, like signing an organ donor card, he thinks
that everyone should do that, to save lives. But he doesn't do it himself
because he thinks its gross. He calls these beliefs "his believies", things
that he believes in as part of his self-image but doesn't follow through on.
He is describing you, your belief that equal consideration of interests is
the default starting position is one of your "believies".



  #48 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-04-2012, 03:27 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 11:29 PM, Dutch wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message
...
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.


You mean like you defended your assertion, by claiming that most
ethicists agree with you? Well I can't honestly say I've ever met an
ethicist,


nor has Woopert...


but if they think that way then they are different than every
other person or animal that I am aware of. No, you're wrong here, in
fact your description of your own moral calculations proves it. You have
admitted that adjusting your lifestyle to avoid causing harm to animals
is secondary to maintaining a suitable career and lifestyle for
yourself, as it should be.


Exactly. Woopert essentially has refused to make any alteration in his
life *whatever* to attempt to give equal consideration to the interests
of animals. I have long maintained that this is a fundamental flaw in
the belief system itself, rather than a flaw in its adherents, if not
*one* of them can be bothered to try to live fully up to its moral
prescriptions.


I don't know if you have ever see the comic
Louis C.K. but he does a bit about his beliefs about what is right, like
signing an organ donor card, he thinks that everyone should do that, to
save lives. But he doesn't do it himself because he thinks its gross. He
calls these beliefs "his believies", things that he believes in as part
of his self-image but doesn't follow through on.


That is brilliant! I'll have to see if I can find anything on it in
YouTube.

Years ago I read of something called The Garbage Project. It's a
long-running academic study at one of the Arizona universities - I can't
recall if it's U of A in Tucson or Arizona State U in Tempe - in which
they analyze human refuse, including human behavior with respect to the
generation and handling of it. One of the things they found is that
with most people, they claim that they recycle far more than they really
do. In surveys, people would report that they recycled heavily while
their neighbors didn't recycle much at all, but what the surveyors found
is that people recycle about as much as what they say their neighbors
do, on average. I think a lot of analysis of virtue would turn up
similar results. That, among other reasons, is why I don't believe
****wit when he says he only buys "cage-free" eggs.


He is describing you,
your belief that equal consideration of interests is the default
starting position is one of your "believies".


Right.
  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-04-2012, 04:21 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: 33
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 8, 10:06*am, 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. *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."

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.

That leads to the second criticism of the passivists' comparison. *The
member of a disadvantaged group was and is able to say, himself, that
his treatment at the hands of the advantaged group's members is based on
irrelevant considerations and is therefore wrong - he is able to
*demonstrate* that he is and ought to be seen as the moral equal of
those in the advantaged group.

The analogy with racism and sexism and other wholly *human* "isms" is
spurious.

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. *Forget about "marginal cases"
- that doesn't achieve anything.


Speciesism is the idea that being human is a good enough reason for
human animals to have greater moral rights than non-human animals. It
is a prejudice or bias in favour of the interests of members of one's
own species and against those of members of other species.

Pure speciesism carries the idea of human superiority to the extreme
of saying that the most trivial human wish is more important that the
vital needs of other species... for example a pure speciesist would
argue that it's ok for animals to be cruelly treated and killed to
provide fur decorations for human beings to wear.

Supporters of speciesism say that there is a clear difference between
humans and other species, and that this difference affects their moral
status.

They argue that human beings are more self-aware, and more able to
choose their own course of action than other animals. This, they say,
enables them to think and act morally, and so entitles them to a
higher moral status.

But the argument that there are morally relevant differences between
human animals and non-human animals is not a speciesist argument,
since the argument is about the particular characteristics that are
being put forward to justify the different moral status of human and
non-human animals.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/...eciesism.shtml
  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-04-2012, 04:41 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 4/12/2012 7:27 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/11/2012 11:29 PM, Dutch wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message
...
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
owninterests, that is the way the world works.

That is something that requires defence from the moral point of view.


You mean like you defended your assertion, by claiming that most
ethicists agree with you? Well I can't honestly say I've ever met an
ethicist,


nor has Woopert...


I should have elaborated in my original reply that it's a sick joke for
Woopert to be saying that the "default position" in ethics is to give
equal consideration to the interests of any suffering-capable entity.
First of all, I don't believe Woopert has studied ethics rigorously at
all, let alone to a degree that would permit him to say with such
comical "authority" what the consensus position among ethicists is.
Second, it is completely obvious, due to the amount of controversy
surrounding it, that Singer's position is distinctly a minority view.
With as much controversy over it as there clearly is, I find it very
hard to believe it's the "default" or consensus view of ethics. Rather,
it's what Singer - and Woopert - would *want* to be the default view.
That's why I maintain they are the ones with the burden of proof: given
that most ethicists (or so I intuitively believe) and the overwhelming
majority of humans do *not* accept it as the default, the burden clearly
is on them.

Carl Cohen said something in "The Animal Rights Debate" that has stuck
with me. He wrote that when there is a huge majority holding a
particular moral intuition, the overwhelming size of that majority gives
it a particular weight that cannot simply be casually brushed away. It
doesn't mean it's necessarily a correct intuition, but there's a
presumption. Now, both the human concept of ethics, and ethics as a
distinct branch of philosophy, have been around literally for millennia.
With all that, the overwhelming majority of humans still consider it
morally acceptable to give less weight to the interests of animals than
to human interests, while at the same time most humans feel that *some*
weight should be given to animals' interests, so it's not as if their
moral intuition simply treats animals as holding no morally considerable
interests at all. However imperfectly people may have thought this
through, they have given thought to it, and concluded that animals'
interests deserve less moral consideration than humans'.

The Humane Society of the US (HSUS) says that 39% of US households own
at least one dog, and 33% of households own at least one cat
(interestingly, there are about 8 million more owned cats in the US than
owned dogs, so many more households have multiple cats than multiple
dogs.)
http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/...tatistics.html
A pet products professional association gives about the same number of
owned cats and dogs, but says the percentage of households owning one or
the other is higher
http://www.americanpetproducts.org/p...strytrends.asp Most US
households are comprised of more than one person, so it's very likely
that more than 50% of Americans have a dog or a cat or both. I think
most people give a fair amount of consideration to the interests of
their animals. They spend over $50 billion a year on them, including
almost $13.5 billion on medical care. If people didn't give
considerable weight to the interests of these animals, they wouldn't
spend nearly as much.

Woopert and his corrupt pal Singer are going to have to do a lot of work
to convince people they ought to be providing the same amount of medical
care and same quality of food to their animals as they provide for
themselves. The "ar"/"al" radicals have the burden of proof. As you
say, most of their so-called ethics with regard to animals seems to be
"believies".



but if they think that way then they are different than every
other person or animal that I am aware of. No, you're wrong here, in
fact your description of your own moral calculations proves it. You have
admitted that adjusting your lifestyle to avoid causing harm to animals
is secondary to maintaining a suitable career and lifestyle for
yourself, as it should be.


Exactly. Woopert essentially has refused to make any alteration in his
life *whatever* to attempt to give equal consideration to the interests
of animals. I have long maintained that this is a fundamental flaw in
the belief system itself, rather than a flaw in its adherents, if not
*one* of them can be bothered to try to live fully up to its moral
prescriptions.


I don't know if you have ever see the comic
Louis C.K. but he does a bit about his beliefs about what is right, like
signing an organ donor card, he thinks that everyone should do that, to
save lives. But he doesn't do it himself because he thinks its gross. He
calls these beliefs "his believies", things that he believes in as part
of his self-image but doesn't follow through on.


That is brilliant! I'll have to see if I can find anything on it in
YouTube.

Years ago I read of something called The Garbage Project. It's a
long-running academic study at one of the Arizona universities - I can't
recall if it's U of A in Tucson or Arizona State U in Tempe - in which
they analyze human refuse, including human behavior with respect to the
generation and handling of it. One of the things they found is that with
most people, they claim that they recycle far more than they really do.
In surveys, people would report that they recycled heavily while their
neighbors didn't recycle much at all, but what the surveyors found is
that people recycle about as much as what they say their neighbors do,
on average. I think a lot of analysis of virtue would turn up similar
results. That, among other reasons, is why I don't believe ****wit when
he says he only buys "cage-free" eggs.


He is describing you,
your belief that equal consideration of interests is the default
starting position is one of your "believies".


Right.




  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-04-2012, 04:43 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 4/12/2012 8:21 AM, Immortalist wrote:
On Apr 8, 10:06 am, 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. 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."

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.

That leads to the second criticism of the passivists' comparison. The
member of a disadvantaged group was and is able to say, himself, that
his treatment at the hands of the advantaged group's members is based on
irrelevant considerations and is therefore wrong - he is able to
*demonstrate* that he is and ought to be seen as the moral equal of
those in the advantaged group.

The analogy with racism and sexism and other wholly *human* "isms" is
spurious.

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. Forget about "marginal cases"
- that doesn't achieve anything.


Speciesism is the idea that being human is a good enough reason for
human animals to have greater moral rights than non-human animals. It
is a prejudice or bias in favour of the interests of members of one's
own species and against those of members of other species.


That's the revolting neologism given as a name for that belief. It's
truly a disgusting word, so much so that every spell-checker I've seen
rejects it as a word.


Pure speciesism carries the idea of human superiority to the extreme
of saying that the most trivial human wish is more important that the
vital needs of other species... for example a pure speciesist would
argue that it's ok for animals to be cruelly treated and killed to
provide fur decorations for human beings to wear.

Supporters of speciesism say that there is a clear difference between
humans and other species, and that this difference affects their moral
status.

They argue that human beings are more self-aware, and more able to
choose their own course of action than other animals. This, they say,
enables them to think and act morally, and so entitles them to a
higher moral status.

But the argument that there are morally relevant differences between
human animals and non-human animals is not a speciesist argument,
since the argument is about the particular characteristics that are
being put forward to justify the different moral status of human and
non-human animals.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/...eciesism.shtml


So, you tiresomely copied and pasted this boilerplate without adding any
commentary of your own. What the **** for?
  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-04-2012, 04:52 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 12, 5:53*am, George Plimpton wrote:
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 plausible that all humans have the potential to be moral
agents.
  #53 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-04-2012, 04:54 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 12, 5:49*am, Rupert wrote:
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.


He agrees with me that it is the majority view among ethicists.

He wasn't sure about references but he mentioned this paper:

http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/fa...son/singer.pdf
  #54 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-04-2012, 04:56 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 12, 7:11*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/11/2012 8:53 PM, Rupert wrote:

On Apr 12, 12:23 am, *wrote:
*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.


Why?


Because the interests of other organisms are equally important from
the moral point of view, and you must offer reasons for favouring your
own.
  #55 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-04-2012, 04:57 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 12, 8:29*am, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

...









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.


You mean like you defended your assertion, by claiming that most ethicists
agree with you? Well I can't honestly say I've ever met an ethicist, but if
they think that way then they are different than every other person or
animal that I am aware of. No, you're wrong here, in fact your description
of your own moral calculations proves it. You have admitted that adjusting
your lifestyle to avoid causing harm to animals is secondary to maintaining
a suitable career and lifestyle for yourself, as it should be. I don't know
if you have ever see the comic Louis C.K. but he does a bit about his
beliefs about what is right, like signing an organ donor card, he thinks
that everyone should do that, to save lives. But he doesn't do it himself
because he thinks its gross. He calls these beliefs "his believies", things
that he believes in as part of his self-image but doesn't follow through on.
He is describing you, your belief that equal consideration of interests is
the default starting position is one of your "believies".


I don't see why my behaviour is inconsistent with equal consideration.


  #56 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-04-2012, 04:58 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 12, 4:27*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/11/2012 11:29 PM, Dutch wrote:









"Rupert" wrote in message
...
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.


You mean like you defended your assertion, by claiming that most
ethicists agree with you? Well I can't honestly say I've ever met an
ethicist,


nor has Woopert...

but if they think that way then they are different than every
other person or animal that I am aware of. No, you're wrong here, in
fact your description of your own moral calculations proves it. You have
admitted that adjusting your lifestyle to avoid causing harm to animals
is secondary to maintaining a suitable career and lifestyle for
yourself, as it should be.


Exactly. *Woopert essentially has refused to make any alteration in his
life *whatever* to attempt to give equal consideration to the interests
of animals.


That is quite obvious nonsense.

  #57 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-04-2012, 05:00 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 12, 5:41*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/12/2012 7:27 AM, George Plimpton wrote:









On 4/11/2012 11:29 PM, Dutch wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message
....
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
owninterests, that is the way the world works.


That is something that requires defence from the moral point of view.


You mean like you defended your assertion, by claiming that most
ethicists agree with you? Well I can't honestly say I've ever met an
ethicist,


nor has Woopert...


I should have elaborated in my original reply that it's a sick joke for
Woopert to be saying that the "default position" in ethics is to give
equal consideration to the interests of any suffering-capable entity.
First of all, I don't believe Woopert has studied ethics rigorously at
all, let alone to a degree that would permit him to say with such
comical "authority" what the consensus position among ethicists is.
Second, it is completely obvious, due to the amount of controversy
surrounding it, that Singer's position is distinctly a minority view.
With as much controversy over it as there clearly is, I find it very
hard to believe it's the "default" or consensus view of ethics. *Rather,
it's what Singer - and Woopert - would *want* to be the default view.
That's why I maintain they are the ones with the burden of proof: *given
that most ethicists (or so I intuitively believe) and the overwhelming
majority of humans do *not* accept it as the default, the burden clearly
is on them.

Carl Cohen said something in "The Animal Rights Debate" that has stuck
with me. *He wrote that when there is a huge majority holding a
particular moral intuition, the overwhelming size of that majority gives
it a particular weight that cannot simply be casually brushed away. *It
doesn't mean it's necessarily a correct intuition, but there's a
presumption. *Now, both the human concept of ethics, and ethics as a
distinct branch of philosophy, have been around literally for millennia.
* With all that, the overwhelming majority of humans still consider it
morally acceptable to give less weight to the interests of animals than
to human interests, while at the same time most humans feel that *some*
weight should be given to animals' interests, so it's not as if their
moral intuition simply treats animals as holding no morally considerable
interests at all. *However imperfectly people may have thought this
through, they have given thought to it, and concluded that animals'
interests deserve less moral consideration than humans'.

The Humane Society of the US (HSUS) says that 39% of US households own
at least one dog, and 33% of households own at least one cat
(interestingly, there are about 8 million more owned cats in the US than
owned dogs, so many more households have multiple cats than multiple
dogs.)http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/...facts/pet_owne...
* A pet products professional association gives about the same number of
owned cats and dogs, but says the percentage of households owning one or
the other is higherhttp://www.americanpetproducts.org/press_industrytrends.asp* Most US
households are comprised of more than one person, so it's very likely
that more than 50% of Americans have a dog or a cat or both. *I think
most people give a fair amount of consideration to the interests of
their animals. *They spend over $50 billion a year on them, including
almost $13.5 billion on medical care. *If people didn't give
considerable weight to the interests of these animals, they wouldn't
spend nearly as much.

Woopert and his corrupt pal Singer are going to have to do a lot of work
to convince people they ought to be providing the same amount of medical
care and same quality of food to their animals as they provide for
themselves.


That does not follow from the principle of equal consideration of
interests.

  #58 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-04-2012, 05:14 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: 33
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 12, 8:43*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/12/2012 8:21 AM, Immortalist wrote:





On Apr 8, 10:06 am, 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. *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."


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.


That leads to the second criticism of the passivists' comparison. *The
member of a disadvantaged group was and is able to say, himself, that
his treatment at the hands of the advantaged group's members is based on
irrelevant considerations and is therefore wrong - he is able to
*demonstrate* that he is and ought to be seen as the moral equal of
those in the advantaged group.


The analogy with racism and sexism and other wholly *human* "isms" is
spurious.


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. *Forget about "marginal cases"
- that doesn't achieve anything.


Speciesism is the idea that being human is a good enough reason for
human animals to have greater moral rights than non-human animals. It
is a prejudice or bias in favour of the interests of members of one's
own species and against those of members of other species.


That's the revolting neologism given as a name for that belief. *It's
truly a disgusting word, so much so that every spell-checker I've seen
rejects it as a word.


Some humans observe that there are a number of apparent differences
between themselves and other beings. This observation alone hardly
justifies any actions involving beings unless combined with other
proposals and justifications.

Your theory of the revoltingness doesn't do the thing either idiot.





Pure speciesism carries the idea of human superiority to the extreme
of saying that the most trivial human wish is more important that the
vital needs of other species... for example a pure speciesist would
argue that it's ok for animals to be cruelly treated and killed to
provide fur decorations for human beings to wear.


Supporters of speciesism say that there is a clear difference between
humans and other species, and that this difference affects their moral
status.


They argue that human beings are more self-aware, and more able to
choose their own course of action than other animals. This, they say,
enables them to think and act morally, and so entitles them to a
higher moral status.


But the argument that there are morally relevant differences between
human animals and non-human animals is not a speciesist argument,
since the argument is about the particular characteristics that are
being put forward to justify the different moral status of human and
non-human animals.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/...eciesism.shtml


So, you tiresomely copied and pasted this boilerplate without adding any
commentary of your own. *What the **** for?


You are proposing that only commentary is allowable, please give
reasons for your theory.
  #59 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-04-2012, 05:46 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 4/12/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 12, 5:53 am, George wrote:
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 plausible that all humans have the potential to be moral
agents.


/ex ante/, all humans do have that potential. /ex post/ we see that the
actuality is some humans have diminished capacity that prevents them
from attaining the normal human potential.
  #60 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-04-2012, 05:47 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 4/12/2012 8:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 12, 7:11 am, George wrote:
On 4/11/2012 8:53 PM, Rupert wrote:

On Apr 12, 12:23 am, wrote:
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.


Why?


Because the interests of other organisms are equally important from
the moral point of view,


That's the assertion you must prove, but have to date not even attempted
to prove.


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 02:08 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