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
  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-04-2012, 05:49 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 8:58 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 12, 4:27 pm, George wrote:
On 4/11/2012 11:29 PM, Dutch wrote:









wrote in message
...
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.


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.


No, it's quite obviously true because *you* told us, explicitly. You
said that you can't - actually, won't - do all that you might do to
ensure you are giving the same consideration to animals' interests that
you give to humans'. You said you "needed" to do things to advance your
career that prevent you from determining which foods produce the least harm.

  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-04-2012, 05:50 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/12/2012 9:00 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 12, 5:41 pm, George wrote:
On 4/12/2012 7:27 AM, George Plimpton wrote:









On 4/11/2012 11:29 PM, Dutch wrote:
wrote in message
...
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
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.


It follows from the fact that your position is distinctly a minority
position that has been implicitly reject by the vast majority of humanity.
  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-04-2012, 05:53 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 9:14 AM, Immortalist wrote:
On Apr 12, 8:43 am, George 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.


Really! How...insightful chortle.

This observation alone hardly
justifies any actions involving beings unless combined with other
proposals and justifications.


Uhh...er...okay.



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


Do what thing, ****tard?




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.


No, I'm not proposing that only commentary is allowable, you tendentious
pedantic ****wit. I'm saying that only doing slavish copypasta isn't
very interesting or helpful.
  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-04-2012, 06:21 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 12, 9:53*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/12/2012 9:14 AM, Immortalist wrote:





On Apr 12, 8:43 am, George *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.


Really! *How...insightful chortle.


Yes, kinda like Descartes argument "I think therefore I exist" except
here the argument is "there are differences between beings therefore
different beings should be treated differently."

This observation alone hardly
justifies any actions involving beings unless combined with other
proposals and justifications.


Uhh...er...okay.



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


Do what thing, ****tard?


The 'do the thing' phrase in my response referred to any attempt to
justify behavior that would be identical to either treating different
beings differently or treating different beings the same. In either
case we would need additional reasons to justify the longstanding
traditions of the way beings have treated or are treated by other
beings. It will do no good to appeal to tradition or evolution as ways
to justify the preponderance of a range of and the prescription of any
treatments. This will not be allowed since it is analogous to claiming
the 2+2=4 not because of any theories of addition and sums but simply
because thats what 2+2 always equalled traditionally.







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.


No, I'm not proposing that only commentary is allowable, you tendentious
pedantic ****wit. *I'm saying that only doing slavish copypasta isn't
very interesting or helpful.


Are you requesting that the topic be changed to the interesting and
helpful or is this another red herring fallacious distration where an
irrelevant issue is introduced to take attention away from you weak
arguing abilities?
  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-04-2012, 06:54 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 10:21 AM, Immortalist wrote:
On Apr 12, 9:53 am, George wrote:
On 4/12/2012 9:14 AM, Immortalist wrote:





On Apr 12, 8:43 am, George 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.


Really! How...insightfulchortle.


Yes, kinda like Descartes argument "I think therefore I exist" except
here the argument is "there are differences between beings therefore
different beings should be treated differently."

This observation alone hardly
justifies any actions involving beings unless combined with other
proposals and justifications.


Uhh...er...okay.



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


Do what thing, ****tard?


The 'do the thing' phrase in my response referred to any attempt to
justify behavior that would be identical to either treating different
beings differently or treating different beings the same. In either
case we would need additional reasons to justify the longstanding
traditions of the way beings have treated or are treated by other
beings. It will do no good to appeal to tradition or evolution as ways
to justify the preponderance of a range of and the prescription of any
treatments. This will not be allowed since it is analogous to claiming
the 2+2=4 not because of any theories of addition and sums but simply
because thats what 2+2 always equalled traditionally.


Crikey, you are one long-winded wheezy *******, aren't you?

In fact, I don't appeal to tradition to justify humans considering
animals' interests differently from how they consider humans' interests.
What I *do* say is that given that humans overwhelmingly *do* give
differential consideration to humans' and animals' interests, and given
that this is based on at least a moral intuition on humans' part that
the difference is morally warranted, it simply isn't going to do for a
challenger position such as Woopert's and Singer's to try to shift the
burden.




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.


No, I'm not proposing that only commentary is allowable, you tendentious
pedantic ****wit. I'm saying that only doing slavish copypasta isn't
very interesting or helpful.


Are you requesting that the topic be changed to the interesting and
helpful or is this another red herring fallacious distration where an
irrelevant issue is introduced to take attention away from you weak
arguing abilities?


It's neither - it's just a well-aimed criticism of you as a wheezy
tendentious pedant.


  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-04-2012, 10:31 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: 1,025
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it



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


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FbnJ...=youtube_gdata

  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-04-2012, 11:00 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: 1,025
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

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


You have based your lifestyle on having a job and an urban apartment near
shops and all that so that you can pursue your career and other personal
interests in a reasonable fashion. That means your default consideration is
yourself, as it must be. From that you presumably have made adjustments and
sacrifices to satisfy your desire to reduce suffering to animals, reduce air
pollution, help the homeless, or whatever else you think is important. But
your consideration to these goals is not equal to the consideration you give
to your own interests, it can't be. You couldn't possibly give equal
consideration to all other entities with interests, much less those who are
in need, or even those you are aware of. It's not possible. You can do *a
few* things, that's all. That's all anyone could expect you to do.

  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-04-2012, 11:06 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, 6:46*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
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.


Why?

/ex post/ we see that the
actuality is some humans have diminished capacity that prevents them
from attaining the normal human potential.


Quite.
  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-04-2012, 11:08 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, 6:47*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
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.


The burden of proof is on someone who says that the interests of a
particular class of organisms deserve special consideration.
  #70 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-04-2012, 11:08 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, 6:50*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/12/2012 9:00 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 12, 5:41 pm, George *wrote:
On 4/12/2012 7:27 AM, George Plimpton wrote:


On 4/11/2012 11:29 PM, Dutch wrote:
*wrote in message
....
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
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.


It follows from the fact that your position is distinctly a minority
position that has been implicitly reject by the vast majority of humanity..


No, it doesn't.


  #71 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-04-2012, 11:09 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, 6:49*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/12/2012 8:58 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 12, 4:27 pm, George *wrote:
On 4/11/2012 11:29 PM, Dutch wrote:


*wrote in message
....
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..


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.


No, it's quite obviously true because *you* told us, explicitly. *You
said that you can't - actually, won't - do all that you might do to
ensure you are giving the same consideration to animals' interests that
you give to humans'. *You said you "needed" to do things to advance your
career that prevent you from determining which foods produce the least harm.


I am giving the same consideration to animals' interests that I give
to humans', I would behave the same way if the victims were human.
  #72 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-04-2012, 11:10 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 13, 12:00*am, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

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


You have based your lifestyle on having a job and an urban apartment near
shops and all that so that you can pursue your career and other personal
interests in a reasonable fashion. *That means your default consideration is
yourself, as it must be. From that you presumably have made adjustments and
sacrifices to satisfy your desire to reduce suffering to animals, reduce air
pollution, help the homeless, or whatever else you think is important. But
your consideration to these goals is not equal to the consideration you give
to your own interests, it can't be. You couldn't possibly give equal
consideration to all other entities with interests, much less those who are
in need, or even those you are aware of. It's not possible. You can do *a
few* things, that's all. That's all anyone could expect you to do.


I never said you weren't allowed to give special priority to your own
interests, I said that was something that required a justification.
  #73 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-04-2012, 11:26 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

"Rupert" wrote
On Apr 13, 12:00 am, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

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


You have based your lifestyle on having a job and an urban apartment near
shops and all that so that you can pursue your career and other personal
interests in a reasonable fashion. That means your default consideration
is
yourself, as it must be. From that you presumably have made adjustments
and
sacrifices to satisfy your desire to reduce suffering to animals, reduce
air
pollution, help the homeless, or whatever else you think is important.
But
your consideration to these goals is not equal to the consideration you
give
to your own interests, it can't be. You couldn't possibly give equal
consideration to all other entities with interests, much less those who
are
in need, or even those you are aware of. It's not possible. You can do *a
few* things, that's all. That's all anyone could expect you to do.


I never said you weren't allowed to give special priority to your own
interests, I said that was something that required a justification.


What is your justification for the special consideration you give to your
own interests?


  #74 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-04-2012, 01:12 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 4/12/2012 3:06 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 12, 6:46 pm, George wrote:
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.


Why?


**** off, time-waster.


/ex post/ we see that the
actuality is some humans have diminished capacity that prevents them
from attaining the normal human potential.

  #75 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-04-2012, 01:13 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 4/12/2012 3:08 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 12, 6:47 pm, George wrote:
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.


The burden of proof is on someone who says that the interests of a
particular class of organisms deserve special consideration.


The burden of proof is on you limp challengers.


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 07:20 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 02:03 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