|
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On Apr 19, 11:52*pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 13, 12:26 am, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> "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. |
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On 4/19/2012 10:20 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 20, 1:52 am, George > wrote: >> On 4/19/2012 1:46 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Apr 19, 4:46 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/19/2012 4:19 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 18, 9:41 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 4/18/2012 12:09 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 18, 8:39 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 10:45 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 5:13 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 6:06 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 7:38 am, > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote in message >> >>>>>>>>>>>> ... >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 9:25 am, > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you're right that it is highly controversial, and I never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested otherwise, but he confirmed my belief that the majority >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion of ethicists is that different amounts of consideration based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on species is something that needs to be justified, the burden of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof is on the speciesist. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The consideration differences that exist in so-called "speciesism" are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually based on species. One thought experiment to illustrate would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> imagine that a friendly extraterrestrial race of beings arrived on earth >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that had superior intellectual capacities to humans. That species would >>>>>>>>>>>>>> automatically be given full consideration equal to humans, and it would >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be based on species, it would be based on the totality of the entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>> constellation of capacities inherent *in* the species. The reason that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "isms" like racism and sexism are wrong is that they are based on >>>>>>>>>>>>>> misconceptions about the capacities of the groups they discriminate >>>>>>>>>>>>>> against. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The discrimination we have against sea sponges is not based on a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> misconception. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's your proof, and explanation. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But when confronted with two cases, one involving a member of your own >>>>>>>>>>>>> species who lacks the usual capacities for your species >> >>>>>>>>>>>> You're talking about abilities, not capacities. >> >>>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not. >> >>>>>>>>>> You are - you're just too thick to realize it. That's what I was trying >>>>>>>>>> to explain to you with the discussion of actuality and potentiality, but >>>>>>>>>> your plankiness prevented you from grasping it. >> >>>>>>>>> There was no discussion. >> >>>>>>>> There was. You didn't contribute anything to it, though. >> >>>>>>> I asked you to explain what you meant by "potential" and you >>>>>>> explicitly refused to tell me. >> >>>>>> That's a lie. >> >>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk....g/7083c141346b... >> >>>> No; this: >> >>>> You, cluelessly: >>>> What do you mean by "potentiality"? >> >>>> Me, helpfully: >>>> 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. >> >>>> I explained it, cocksucker, in plain English. The fact you cynically >>>> pretended not to understand it is not my problem. >> >>>> You're a very bad liar, Woopert - a liar, to be sure, but a very bad one. >> >>> No, actually, in that passage from yourself which you quoted you do >>> not explain what you mean by "potentiality". >> >> I believe English is your native tongue, and by talking about having "the >> potential to be or to become a moral actor", I describe it in terms you >> ought to be able to understand. If you say you don't, then you're >> either retarded or a liar. > > Yes, I can understand what that phrase would usually mean, but on that > interpretation it would not be plausible that every human has the > potential to be a moral actor, as you claimed. /Ex ante/, knowing only that an entity is human, then it does have the potential to be a moral actor. You know this. |
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On 4/19/2012 10:25 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 20, 1:53 am, George > wrote: >> On 4/19/2012 1:47 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Apr 19, 4:47 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/19/2012 4:20 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 18, 9:41 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 4/18/2012 12:09 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 18, 8:47 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 10:48 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 5:15 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 6:06 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 1:31 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2012 1:34 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 9:25 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2012 11:10 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 4:01 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2012 11:47 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 8:53 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2012 11:13 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 4:46 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 11:17 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 6:37 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 8:44 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 5:37 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 8:19 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 4:58 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 6:32 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, it just degenerates into an exchange of contrary assertions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about who has the burden of proof >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have claimed not only that the burden of proof in terms of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justifying "speciesism" is on those who rely on it, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I have claimed that, and I have also claimed that most ethicists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree on this point, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're full of shit on that point. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, my friend who is doing a PhD in metaethics doesn't think so, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your "ara" radical pal is a lying partisan. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not talking about John Hadley. It's another guy, and he's not an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ARA. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He's still a radical lying partisan. You're trying to appeal to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> authority, when the credentials of the so-called authority are not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> established. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is someone who is doing a PhD in metaethics, and he is not an ARA. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's nice. I still don't see that he would be qualified to say that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "default position" of ethics is that equal consideration ought to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given to entities' interests irrespective of species. That's a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *normative* ethical prescription. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite, but in the course of doing a PhD in metaethics one becomes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite knowledgeable about normative ethics as well. The different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> areas of moral philosophy are linked. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It also is a highly controversial one, disputed by many people in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field of ethics and elsewhere. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you're right that it is highly controversial, and I never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested otherwise, but he confirmed my belief that the majority >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion of ethicists is that different amounts of consideration based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on species is something that needs to be justified, the burden of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof is on the speciesist. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is reasonable to suppose that he would be better-informed about the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter than you. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Meta-ethics is not normative ethics. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that. My remark still stands. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your remark is bullshit. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, it's the obvious truth. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep piling up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the burdens of proof that you then shirk. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you want me to try to prove? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of what? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of your claims. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you name a claim I've made that I haven't proved? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes: that equal consideration is due animals' interests. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay. So you believe all human interests are entitled to equal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration, yes? Or no? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No - and neither do you. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you believe about humans, then? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That we all establish hierarchies or circles. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you don't believe in any notion of human equality? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On every possible dimension? No, of course not - and neither do you. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know what you mean by "on every possible dimension". >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you do. >> >>>>>>>>>>> You are a foolish person. >> >>>>>>>>>> No. You don't believe it, either. >> >>>>>>>>> If you really think I don't believe it then that is rather amusing. >> >>>>>>>> You don't find anything amusing about it. >> >>>>>>> Again, if you really believe that then that too is rather amusing. >> >>>>>> Same again. >> >>>>> So, where exactly does your confidence in these beliefs of yours come >>>>> from? >> >>>> That's kind of a pointless question. >> >>> Well, it was a question that was of interest to me. >> >> No, it wasn't. It was just time-wasting. >> > > Well, you were the one who turned the conversation into a time-wasting > exercise, Nope. That's always you. >>>> Here's a better one, psycho: >>>> where does your impulse to waste time originate? >> >>> Why is that a better question? >> >> It's one that is of interest to me, and I care more about my interests >> than yours, which you tell me is ethical. > > Well, ask yourself where does your impulse to waste time originate, I don't have that impulse; you do. |
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On 4/19/2012 10:25 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 20, 1:54 am, George > wrote: >> On 4/19/2012 1:48 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Apr 19, 4:48 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/19/2012 4:22 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 18, 9:44 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 4/18/2012 12:13 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 18, 8:52 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 10:54 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 5:19 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 6:10 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 1:31 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2012 1:35 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 9:23 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2012 11:07 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 4:09 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2012 4:45 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 8:53 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2012 11:14 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 4:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 11:15 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 6:36 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 8:22 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 4:59 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 6:35 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 3:09 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 6:49 pm, George > 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', >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You aren't. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think that? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've told us. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When did I tell you that? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Several times over the last couple of years. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you show me one occasion on which I did so? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I could, but I won't - you're just trying to waste my time. Perhaps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Derek will help you find one. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have never told you any such thing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You certainly have. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then why is it that you are not able to show me where? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who says I'm not able? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you were able then why wouldn't you? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lots of reasons. Lack of ability doesn't enter into it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So you would apparently like us to believe. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> So it just happens to be. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> As I say, I have never told you that I don't give the same amount of >>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration to nonhuman animals' interests as I give to human >>>>>>>>>>>>> interests, >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you did. >> >>>>>>>>>>> You don't appear capable of lifting the conversation beyond "No, I >>>>>>>>>>> didn't"; Yes, you did". >> >>>>>>>>>> Why bother, with a psychotic like you? >> >>>>>>>>> In order to make the conversation more edifying, obviously. >> >>>>>>>>> I'm not a psychotic, >> >>>>>>>> You sure are. >> >>>>>>> You are a foolish person. >> >>>>>>>>>>> You have put forward a claim that I once made >>>>>>>>>>> a statement which logically entailed that I don't give the same amount >>>>>>>>>>> of consideration to nonhuman animals' interests as I give to human >>>>>>>>>>> interests. >> >>>>>>>>>> Correct; you did. >> >>>>>>>>> So you claim but you are unable to substantiate the claim, because >>>>>>>>> it's not true. >> >>>>>>>> It is true. >> >>>>>>> Then why are you unable to substantiate it? >> >>>>>>>>>>> This is false, >> >>>>>>>>>> Nope; it's true. >> >>>>>>>>> So you claim but you are unable to substantiate the claim, because >> >>>>>>>> Substantiated. >> >>>>>>> Pffft. >> >>>>>>>>>>> I have never made any such statement, >> >>>>>>>>>> You have done. >> >>>>>>>>> See above. >> >>>>>>>> See above. >> >>>>>>>>>>> and you cannot give an example of me making such a statement because >>>>>>>>>>> I never have. >> >>>>>>>>>> You most certainly have. It was when you said you couldn't be bothered >>>>>>>>>> to adjust your "lifestyle" [bleaghhh] to eliminate products from it that >>>>>>>>>> caused harm to animals. You *do* adjust your "lifestyle" to eliminate >>>>>>>>>> similar harm to humans. >> >>>>>>>>> No, I don't. >> >>>>>>>> You do. >> >>>>>>> There are no "similar harms" to humans. The cases involving harm to >>>>>>> humans which actually occur are not relevantly similar. >> >>>>>> Bullshit. You wouldn't hesitate to boycott a company that engaged in >>>>>> far less harm to humans' interests than those companies whose products >>>>>> you consume do in fact cause to animals. >> >>>>> It's not bullshit. I've already explained it. >> >>>> You didn't - you waffled with bullshit, as usual. >> >>>> It is fully established that you give different consideration to the >>>> interests of animals than you do to humans. >> >>> Wrong. >> >> Nope. I'm right. Everyone knows it, too. > > Much joy may this fact bring you. It does. |
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On 4/19/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 19, 11:52 pm, > wrote: >> > wrote in message >> >> ... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Apr 13, 12:26 am, > wrote: >>>> > wrote >> >>>>> On Apr 13, 12:00 am, > wrote: >>>>>> > 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? >> >>> You mean my justification for continuing to buy the products of plant- >>> based agriculture? >> >> I mean what I said. You said that giving special priority to your own >> interests required a justification, what is yours? > > If you are referring to my buying products whose production harms > animals, my justification for that is that it gives me opportunities > to reduce other forms of suffering Bullshit. You buy the products whose production harms animals simply because you like them. At no time and in no way do you calculate that buy some amount of harm-causing product X will enable you to buy less harm-causing product Y. Cut the bullshit. You buy stuff because you like it. In terms of the products you *do* buy, you don't engage in any sort of calculation to see how it fits into an overall strategy of harm reduction. Stop bullshitting. |
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On Apr 20, 7:39*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/19/2012 10:20 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 1:52 am, George > *wrote: > >> On 4/19/2012 1:46 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Apr 19, 4:46 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 4/19/2012 4:19 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Apr 18, 9:41 pm, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 4/18/2012 12:09 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Apr 18, 8:39 pm, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 10:45 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 5:13 pm, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 6:06 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 7:38 am, > * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > * * * * * *wrote in message > > ... > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 9:25 am, > * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > * * * * * *wrote > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you're right that it is highly controversial, and I never > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested otherwise, but he confirmed my belief that the majority > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion of ethicists is that different amounts of consideration based > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on species is something that needs to be justified, the burden of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof is on the speciesist. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The consideration differences that exist in so-called "speciesism" are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually based on species. One thought experiment to illustrate would be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> imagine that a friendly extraterrestrial race of beings arrived on earth > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that had superior intellectual capacities to humans. That species would > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> automatically be given full consideration equal to humans, and it would > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be based on species, it would be based on the totality of the entire > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> constellation of capacities inherent *in* the species. The reason that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> other > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "isms" like racism and sexism are wrong is that they are based on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> misconceptions about the capacities of the groups they discriminate > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> against. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The discrimination we have against sea sponges is not based on a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> misconception. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's your proof, and explanation. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> But when confronted with two cases, one involving a member of your own > >>>>>>>>>>>>> species who lacks the usual capacities for your species > > >>>>>>>>>>>> You're talking about abilities, not capacities. > > >>>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not. > > >>>>>>>>>> You are - you're just too thick to realize it. *That's what I was trying > >>>>>>>>>> to explain to you with the discussion of actuality and potentiality, but > >>>>>>>>>> your plankiness prevented you from grasping it. > > >>>>>>>>> There was no discussion. > > >>>>>>>> There was. *You didn't contribute anything to it, though. > > >>>>>>> I asked you to explain what you meant by "potential" and you > >>>>>>> explicitly refused to tell me. > > >>>>>> That's a lie. > > >>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/talk....g/7083c141346b... > > >>>> No; this: > > >>>> * * * * You, cluelessly: > >>>> * * * * What do you mean by "potentiality"? > > >>>> * * * * Me, helpfully: > >>>> * * * * 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. > > >>>> I explained it, cocksucker, in plain English. *The fact you cynically > >>>> pretended not to understand it is not my problem. > > >>>> You're a very bad liar, Woopert - a liar, to be sure, but a very bad one. > > >>> No, actually, in that passage from yourself which you quoted you do > >>> not explain what you mean by "potentiality". > > >> I believe English is your native tongue, and by talking about having "the > >> potential to be or to become a moral actor", I describe it in terms you > >> ought to be able to understand. *If you say you don't, then you're > >> either retarded or a liar. > > > Yes, I can understand what that phrase would usually mean, but on that > > interpretation it would not be plausible that every human has the > > potential to be a moral actor, as you claimed. > > /Ex ante/, knowing only that an entity is human, then it does have the > potential to be a moral actor. *You know this. "Ex ante" means "before the event"; I don't think you're applying that phrase correctly. It's obviously not true that all humans have the potential for moral agency. |
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On Apr 20, 7:40*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/19/2012 10:25 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 1:53 am, George > *wrote: > >> On 4/19/2012 1:47 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Apr 19, 4:47 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 4/19/2012 4:20 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Apr 18, 9:41 pm, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 4/18/2012 12:09 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Apr 18, 8:47 pm, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 10:48 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 5:15 pm, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 6:06 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 1:31 am, George > * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2012 1:34 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 9:25 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2012 11:10 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 4:01 pm, George > * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2012 11:47 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 8:53 pm, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2012 11:13 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 4:46 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 11:17 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 6:37 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 8:44 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 5:37 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 8:19 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 4:58 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 6:32 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, it just degenerates into an exchange of contrary assertions > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about who has the burden of proof > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have claimed not only that the burden of proof in terms of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justifying "speciesism" is on those who rely on it, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I have claimed that, and I have also claimed that most ethicists > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree on this point, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're full of shit on that point. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, my friend who is doing a PhD in metaethics doesn't think so, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your "ara" radical pal is a lying partisan. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not talking about John Hadley. It's another guy, and he's not an > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ARA. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He's still a radical lying partisan. *You're trying to appeal to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> authority, when the credentials of the so-called authority are not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> established. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is someone who is doing a PhD in metaethics, and he is not an ARA. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's nice. *I still don't see that he would be qualified to say that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "default position" of ethics is that equal consideration ought to be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given to entities' interests irrespective of species. *That's a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *normative* ethical prescription. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite, but in the course of doing a PhD in metaethics one becomes > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite knowledgeable about normative ethics as well. The different > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> areas of moral philosophy are linked. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It also is a highly controversial one, disputed by many people in the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field of ethics and elsewhere. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you're right that it is highly controversial, and I never > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested otherwise, but he confirmed my belief that the majority > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion of ethicists is that different amounts of consideration based > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on species is something that needs to be justified, the burden of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof is on the speciesist. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is reasonable to suppose that he would be better-informed about the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter than you. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Meta-ethics is not normative ethics. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that. My remark still stands. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your remark is bullshit. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, it's the obvious truth. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep piling up > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the burdens of proof that you then shirk. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you want me to try to prove? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of it. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of what? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of your claims. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you name a claim I've made that I haven't proved? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes: *that equal consideration is due animals' interests. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay. So you believe all human interests are entitled to equal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration, yes? Or no? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No - and neither do you. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you believe about humans, then? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That we all establish hierarchies or circles. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you don't believe in any notion of human equality? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On every possible dimension? *No, of course not - and neither do you. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know what you mean by "on every possible dimension".. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you do. > > >>>>>>>>>>> You are a foolish person. > > >>>>>>>>>> No. *You don't believe it, either. > > >>>>>>>>> If you really think I don't believe it then that is rather amusing. > > >>>>>>>> You don't find anything amusing about it. > > >>>>>>> Again, if you really believe that then that too is rather amusing.. > > >>>>>> Same again. > > >>>>> So, where exactly does your confidence in these beliefs of yours come > >>>>> from? > > >>>> That's kind of a pointless question. > > >>> Well, it was a question that was of interest to me. > > >> No, it wasn't. *It was just time-wasting. > > > Well, you were the one who turned the conversation into a time-wasting > > exercise, > > Nope. *That's always you. > This belief of yours strikes me as without rational foundation. > >>>> Here's a better one, psycho: > >>>> where does your impulse to waste time originate? > > >>> Why is that a better question? > > >> It's one that is of interest to me, and I care more about my interests > >> than yours, which you tell me is ethical. > > > Well, ask yourself where does your impulse to waste time originate, > > I don't have that impulse; you do. So you don't have the impulse to waste time; this conversation has been a profitable use of time for you? |
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On Apr 20, 7:40*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/19/2012 10:25 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 1:54 am, George > *wrote: > >> On 4/19/2012 1:48 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Apr 19, 4:48 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 4/19/2012 4:22 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Apr 18, 9:44 pm, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 4/18/2012 12:13 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Apr 18, 8:52 pm, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 10:54 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 5:19 pm, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 6:10 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 1:31 am, George > * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2012 1:35 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 9:23 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2012 11:07 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 4:09 pm, George > * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2012 4:45 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 8:53 pm, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2012 11:14 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 4:45 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 11:15 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 6:36 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 8:22 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 4:59 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 6:35 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 3:09 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 6:49 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *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', > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You aren't. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think that? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've told us. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When did I tell you that? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Several times over the last couple of years. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you show me one occasion on which I did so? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I could, but I won't - you're just trying to waste my time. *Perhaps > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Derek will help you find one. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have never told you any such thing. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You certainly have. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then why is it that you are not able to show me where? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who says I'm not able? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you were able then why wouldn't you? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lots of reasons. *Lack of ability doesn't enter into it. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So you would apparently like us to believe. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> So it just happens to be. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> As I say, I have never told you that I don't give the same amount of > >>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration to nonhuman animals' interests as I give to human > >>>>>>>>>>>>> interests, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you did. > > >>>>>>>>>>> You don't appear capable of lifting the conversation beyond "No, I > >>>>>>>>>>> didn't"; Yes, you did". > > >>>>>>>>>> Why bother, with a psychotic like you? > > >>>>>>>>> In order to make the conversation more edifying, obviously. > > >>>>>>>>> I'm not a psychotic, > > >>>>>>>> You sure are. > > >>>>>>> You are a foolish person. > > >>>>>>>>>>> You have put forward a claim that I once made > >>>>>>>>>>> a statement which logically entailed that I don't give the same amount > >>>>>>>>>>> of consideration to nonhuman animals' interests as I give to human > >>>>>>>>>>> interests. > > >>>>>>>>>> Correct; you did. > > >>>>>>>>> So you claim but you are unable to substantiate the claim, because > >>>>>>>>> it's not true. > > >>>>>>>> It is true. > > >>>>>>> Then why are you unable to substantiate it? > > >>>>>>>>>>> This is false, > > >>>>>>>>>> Nope; it's true. > > >>>>>>>>> So you claim but you are unable to substantiate the claim, because > > >>>>>>>> Substantiated. > > >>>>>>> Pffft. > > >>>>>>>>>>> I have never made any such statement, > > >>>>>>>>>> You have done. > > >>>>>>>>> See above. > > >>>>>>>> See above. > > >>>>>>>>>>> and you cannot give an example of me making such a statement because > >>>>>>>>>>> I never have. > > >>>>>>>>>> You most certainly have. *It was when you said you couldn't be bothered > >>>>>>>>>> to adjust your "lifestyle" [bleaghhh] to eliminate products from it that > >>>>>>>>>> caused harm to animals. *You *do* adjust your "lifestyle" to eliminate > >>>>>>>>>> similar harm to humans. > > >>>>>>>>> No, I don't. > > >>>>>>>> You do. > > >>>>>>> There are no "similar harms" to humans. The cases involving harm to > >>>>>>> humans which actually occur are not relevantly similar. > > >>>>>> Bullshit. *You wouldn't hesitate to boycott a company that engaged in > >>>>>> far less harm to humans' interests than those companies whose products > >>>>>> you consume do in fact cause to animals. > > >>>>> It's not bullshit. I've already explained it. > > >>>> You didn't - you waffled with bullshit, as usual. > > >>>> It is fully established that you give different consideration to the > >>>> interests of animals than you do to humans. > > >>> Wrong. > > >> Nope. *I'm right. *Everyone knows it, too. > > > Much joy may this fact bring you. > > It does. Good to hear. |
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On Apr 20, 7:43*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/19/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 19, 11:52 pm, > *wrote: > >> > *wrote in message > > .... > > >>> On Apr 13, 12:26 am, > *wrote: > >>>> > *wrote > > >>>>> On Apr 13, 12:00 am, > *wrote: > >>>>>> > *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? > > >>> You mean my justification for continuing to buy the products of plant- > >>> based agriculture? > > >> I mean what I said. You said that giving special priority to your own > >> interests required a justification, what is yours? > > > If you are referring to my buying products whose production harms > > animals, my justification for that is that it gives me opportunities > > to reduce other forms of suffering > > Bullshit. *You buy the products whose production harms animals simply > because you like them. *At no time and in no way do you calculate that > buy some amount of harm-causing product X will enable you to buy less > harm-causing product Y. *Cut the bullshit. > I was referring to the fact that buying the products of plant-based agriculture is the only way that I can hold down my current job, which gives me opportunities to donate money to charities which are effective at reducing suffering in the Third World. Thus, overall I reduce suffering to a greater extent than I otherwise would. > You buy stuff because you like it. *In terms of the products you *do* > buy, you don't engage in any sort of calculation to see how it fits into > an overall strategy of harm reduction. > But I do engage in research about what are the most effective strategies for suffering reduction when it comes to charitable donations, and I have also talked on the internet with like-minded individuals about strategies for reducing the harm associated with my food consumption, except that in that particular area reliable data is hard to come by. > Stop bullshitting. I am not bullshitting, and you have no rational grounds for thinking I am. |
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
"Rupert" > wrote in message
... > On Apr 20, 12:07 am, "Dutch" > wrote: >> "Rupert" > wrote in message >> >> ... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Apr 19, 10:13 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> "Rupert" > wrote >> >> >> > On Apr 18, 11:57 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> >> Sure there is. What are the cognitive capacities of say, a chicken, >> >> >> or >> >> >> a >> >> >> housefly? That is a broad question that recognizes that some >> >> >> chickens >> >> >> or >> >> >> houseflies may have been born retarded, have been hit by a blunt >> >> >> object, >> >> >> or >> >> >> on the other hand may be especially clever. The question can still >> >> >> answered >> >> >> though. It is different than asking, "what are the cognitive >> >> >> capacities >> >> >> of >> >> >> *that specific* chicken or housefly?", in which case there are >> >> >> assumptions >> >> >> involved. In either case you can be pretty damn confident of the >> >> >> upper >> >> >> limits, which is the main thing. Any being through some form of >> >> >> impairment >> >> >> may lose some or all of it's abilities, that is not what inherent >> >> >> capacity >> >> >> is about. >> >> >> > As I say, I don't believe you are using any meaningful notion of >> >> > "inherent capacity" here. >> >> >> Would you not concede that bats are born with the inherent capacity of >> >> navigation using sonar? >> >> > That sounds pretty reasonable to me, yes. >> >> That's what I mean by inherent capacity. When we think of bats one of the >> first things we think of is their sonar. Some bats undoubtedly for some >> reason don't have it, or it never develops properly, but it is in the DNA >> of >> bats. > > It is in the DNA of bats in general, yes, if you were looking at an > individual bat who lacked the ability then whether or not the capacity > was still "in the DNA" would be a scientific research programme. > >> But it's not the whole story of bats, they are also a *mammal that can >> fly*, that's another amazing inherent quality of the bat. They eat a lot >> of >> bugs too. So when we refer to "bats" we mean everything we know about >> "bats". We know a lot of other stuff about bats, That's what "species" >> relates, the accumulation of all the inherent capacities of a species . >> We >> relate to bats based on that, we do it for for worms and sponges and >> fruit >> flies, gorillas and humans. We don't give them equal consideration, we >> give >> them consideration based on their "kind" and all that implies. > > Another option is to give each individual bat consideration based on > the abilities they actually possess. Give them all IQ tests? The upper limit of their abilities is known and that's the only one that matters. Species are afforded consideration based on the upper limit of abilities of the most advanced known member of their species. |
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On Apr 20, 8:42*am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 12:07 am, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> "Rupert" > wrote in message > > .... > > >> > On Apr 19, 10:13 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >> "Rupert" > wrote > > >> >> > On Apr 18, 11:57 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >> >> Sure there is. What are the cognitive capacities of say, a chicken, > >> >> >> or > >> >> >> a > >> >> >> housefly? That is a broad question that recognizes that some > >> >> >> chickens > >> >> >> or > >> >> >> houseflies may have been born retarded, have been hit by a blunt > >> >> >> object, > >> >> >> or > >> >> >> on the other hand may be especially clever. The question can still > >> >> >> answered > >> >> >> though. It is different than asking, "what are the cognitive > >> >> >> capacities > >> >> >> of > >> >> >> *that specific* chicken or housefly?", in which case there are > >> >> >> assumptions > >> >> >> involved. In either case you can be pretty damn confident of the > >> >> >> upper > >> >> >> limits, which is the main thing. Any being through some form of > >> >> >> impairment > >> >> >> may lose some or all of it's abilities, that is not what inherent > >> >> >> capacity > >> >> >> is about. > > >> >> > As I say, I don't believe you are using any meaningful notion of > >> >> > "inherent capacity" here. > > >> >> Would you not concede that bats are born with the inherent capacity of > >> >> navigation using sonar? > > >> > That sounds pretty reasonable to me, yes. > > >> That's what I mean by inherent capacity. When we think of bats one of the > >> first things we think of is their sonar. Some bats undoubtedly for some > >> reason don't have it, or it never develops properly, but it is in the DNA > >> of > >> bats. > > > It is in the DNA of bats in general, yes, if you were looking at an > > individual bat who lacked the ability then whether or not the capacity > > was still "in the DNA" would be a scientific research programme. > > >> But it's not the whole story of bats, they are also a *mammal that can > >> fly*, that's another amazing inherent quality of the bat. They eat a lot > >> of > >> bugs too. So when we refer to "bats" we mean everything we know about > >> "bats". We know a lot of other stuff about bats, That's what "species" > >> relates, the accumulation of all the inherent capacities of a species .. > >> We > >> relate to bats based on that, we do it for for worms and sponges and > >> fruit > >> flies, gorillas and humans. We don't give them equal consideration, we > >> give > >> them consideration based on their "kind" and all that implies. > > > Another option is to give each individual bat consideration based on > > the abilities they actually possess. > > Give them all IQ tests? I don't see any good reason why that would be necessary. > The upper limit of their abilities is known and > that's the only one that matters. Species are afforded consideration based > on the upper limit of abilities of the most advanced known member of their > species. Well, what sort of moral consideration do you believe that gorillas are entitled to, for example? |
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On 4/19/2012 11:09 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 20, 7:39 am, George > wrote: >> On 4/19/2012 10:20 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Apr 20, 1:52 am, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/19/2012 1:46 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 19, 4:46 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 4/19/2012 4:19 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 18, 9:41 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 12:09 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 8:39 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 10:45 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 5:13 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 6:06 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 7:38 am, > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote in message >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 9:25 am, > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you're right that it is highly controversial, and I never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested otherwise, but he confirmed my belief that the majority >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion of ethicists is that different amounts of consideration based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on species is something that needs to be justified, the burden of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof is on the speciesist. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The consideration differences that exist in so-called "speciesism" are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually based on species. One thought experiment to illustrate would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imagine that a friendly extraterrestrial race of beings arrived on earth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that had superior intellectual capacities to humans. That species would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> automatically be given full consideration equal to humans, and it would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be based on species, it would be based on the totality of the entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constellation of capacities inherent *in* the species. The reason that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "isms" like racism and sexism are wrong is that they are based on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misconceptions about the capacities of the groups they discriminate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The discrimination we have against sea sponges is not based on a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misconception. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's your proof, and explanation. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But when confronted with two cases, one involving a member of your own >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> species who lacks the usual capacities for your species >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're talking about abilities, not capacities. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> You are - you're just too thick to realize it. That's what I was trying >>>>>>>>>>>> to explain to you with the discussion of actuality and potentiality, but >>>>>>>>>>>> your plankiness prevented you from grasping it. >> >>>>>>>>>>> There was no discussion. >> >>>>>>>>>> There was. You didn't contribute anything to it, though. >> >>>>>>>>> I asked you to explain what you meant by "potential" and you >>>>>>>>> explicitly refused to tell me. >> >>>>>>>> That's a lie. >> >>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk....g/7083c141346b... >> >>>>>> No; this: >> >>>>>> You, cluelessly: >>>>>> What do you mean by "potentiality"? >> >>>>>> Me, helpfully: >>>>>> 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. >> >>>>>> I explained it, cocksucker, in plain English. The fact you cynically >>>>>> pretended not to understand it is not my problem. >> >>>>>> You're a very bad liar, Woopert - a liar, to be sure, but a very bad one. >> >>>>> No, actually, in that passage from yourself which you quoted you do >>>>> not explain what you mean by "potentiality". >> >>>> I believe English is your native tongue, and by talking about having "the >>>> potential to be or to become a moral actor", I describe it in terms you >>>> ought to be able to understand. If you say you don't, then you're >>>> either retarded or a liar. >> >>> Yes, I can understand what that phrase would usually mean, but on that >>> interpretation it would not be plausible that every human has the >>> potential to be a moral actor, as you claimed. >> >> /Ex ante/, knowing only that an entity is human, then it does have the >> potential to be a moral actor. You know this. > > "Ex ante" means "before the event"; I don't think you're applying that > phrase correctly. > > It's obviously not true that all humans have the potential for moral > agency. Use /a priori/ if it makes you feel any better, you nitpicking ****. /A priori/, knowing only that an entity you are going to consider is a living human, then it does have the potential to be a moral actor, and you know it. You *expect* the human to be, or to develop to become, a moral actor. If it doesn't, something is wrong; the human has a defect. Being human doesn't mean simply a pure Cambridge relation with other humans. It means something about the faculties a human ought to have. There is something teleologically important about the observation that "humans uniquely possess the capacity for moral agency that leads to rights." This is not a statistical observation about "all" or "the overwhelming majority of" or "most" or "some" humans. It is an observation about humans as a category. When you ****witted "aras" start dwelling on individuals, you're completely missing the point. This is the thing you ****wits simply don't get - or more likely, *will not* get. In addition to the amc missing the point entirely, the way "aras" got there is completely specious and invalid. You started with a position that simply feels right, intuitively, to you, and then you started scrabbling around trying to find some support for it. The amc is something you backed into, not something you thought of and *then* followed to a logical conclusion. That's why you can't see its inadequacy, and it's why you fundamentally don't understand species normality. You really don't, and because of a basic intellectual dishonesty and charlatanism, you never will. |
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On 4/19/2012 11:11 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 20, 7:40 am, George > wrote: >> On 4/19/2012 10:25 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Apr 20, 1:53 am, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/19/2012 1:47 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 19, 4:47 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 4/19/2012 4:20 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 18, 9:41 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 12:09 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 8:47 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 10:48 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 5:15 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 6:06 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 1:31 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2012 1:34 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 9:25 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2012 11:10 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 4:01 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2012 11:47 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 8:53 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2012 11:13 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 4:46 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 11:17 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 6:37 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 8:44 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 5:37 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 8:19 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 4:58 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 6:32 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, it just degenerates into an exchange of contrary assertions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about who has the burden of proof >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have claimed not only that the burden of proof in terms of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justifying "speciesism" is on those who rely on it, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I have claimed that, and I have also claimed that most ethicists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree on this point, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're full of shit on that point. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, my friend who is doing a PhD in metaethics doesn't think so, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your "ara" radical pal is a lying partisan. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not talking about John Hadley. It's another guy, and he's not an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ARA. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He's still a radical lying partisan. You're trying to appeal to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> authority, when the credentials of the so-called authority are not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> established. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is someone who is doing a PhD in metaethics, and he is not an ARA. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's nice. I still don't see that he would be qualified to say that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "default position" of ethics is that equal consideration ought to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given to entities' interests irrespective of species. That's a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *normative* ethical prescription. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite, but in the course of doing a PhD in metaethics one becomes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite knowledgeable about normative ethics as well. The different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> areas of moral philosophy are linked. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It also is a highly controversial one, disputed by many people in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field of ethics and elsewhere. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you're right that it is highly controversial, and I never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested otherwise, but he confirmed my belief that the majority >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion of ethicists is that different amounts of consideration based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on species is something that needs to be justified, the burden of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof is on the speciesist. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is reasonable to suppose that he would be better-informed about the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter than you. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Meta-ethics is not normative ethics. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that. My remark still stands. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your remark is bullshit. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, it's the obvious truth. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep piling up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the burdens of proof that you then shirk. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you want me to try to prove? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of what? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of your claims. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you name a claim I've made that I haven't proved? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes: that equal consideration is due animals' interests. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay. So you believe all human interests are entitled to equal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration, yes? Or no? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No - and neither do you. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you believe about humans, then? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That we all establish hierarchies or circles. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you don't believe in any notion of human equality? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On every possible dimension? No, of course not - and neither do you. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know what you mean by "on every possible dimension". >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you do. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You are a foolish person. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> No. You don't believe it, either. >> >>>>>>>>>>> If you really think I don't believe it then that is rather amusing. >> >>>>>>>>>> You don't find anything amusing about it. >> >>>>>>>>> Again, if you really believe that then that too is rather amusing. >> >>>>>>>> Same again. >> >>>>>>> So, where exactly does your confidence in these beliefs of yours come >>>>>>> from? >> >>>>>> That's kind of a pointless question. >> >>>>> Well, it was a question that was of interest to me. >> >>>> No, it wasn't. It was just time-wasting. >> >>> Well, you were the one who turned the conversation into a time-wasting >>> exercise, >> >> Nope. That's always you. >> > > This belief of yours strikes me as without rational foundation. Funny - that's what I think about the entire "ar" proposition. >>>>>> Here's a better one, psycho: >>>>>> where does your impulse to waste time originate? >> >>>>> Why is that a better question? >> >>>> It's one that is of interest to me, and I care more about my interests >>>> than yours, which you tell me is ethical. >> >>> Well, ask yourself where does your impulse to waste time originate, >> >> I don't have that impulse; you do. > > So you don't have the impulse to waste time; this conversation has > been a profitable use of time for you? Yes, of course - by presumption, as I am rational economic actor. |
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On 4/19/2012 11:11 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 20, 7:40 am, George > wrote: >> On 4/19/2012 10:25 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Apr 20, 1:54 am, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/19/2012 1:48 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 19, 4:48 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 4/19/2012 4:22 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 18, 9:44 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 12:13 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 8:52 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 10:54 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 5:19 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 6:10 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 1:31 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2012 1:35 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 9:23 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2012 11:07 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 4:09 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2012 4:45 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 8:53 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2012 11:14 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 4:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 11:15 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 6:36 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 8:22 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 4:59 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 6:35 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 3:09 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 6:49 pm, George > 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', >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You aren't. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think that? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've told us. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When did I tell you that? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Several times over the last couple of years. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you show me one occasion on which I did so? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I could, but I won't - you're just trying to waste my time. Perhaps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Derek will help you find one. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have never told you any such thing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You certainly have. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then why is it that you are not able to show me where? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who says I'm not able? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you were able then why wouldn't you? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lots of reasons. Lack of ability doesn't enter into it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you would apparently like us to believe. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So it just happens to be. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I say, I have never told you that I don't give the same amount of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration to nonhuman animals' interests as I give to human >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interests, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you did. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't appear capable of lifting the conversation beyond "No, I >>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't"; Yes, you did". >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why bother, with a psychotic like you? >> >>>>>>>>>>> In order to make the conversation more edifying, obviously. >> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm not a psychotic, >> >>>>>>>>>> You sure are. >> >>>>>>>>> You are a foolish person. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You have put forward a claim that I once made >>>>>>>>>>>>> a statement which logically entailed that I don't give the same amount >>>>>>>>>>>>> of consideration to nonhuman animals' interests as I give to human >>>>>>>>>>>>> interests. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Correct; you did. >> >>>>>>>>>>> So you claim but you are unable to substantiate the claim, because >>>>>>>>>>> it's not true. >> >>>>>>>>>> It is true. >> >>>>>>>>> Then why are you unable to substantiate it? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is false, >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope; it's true. >> >>>>>>>>>>> So you claim but you are unable to substantiate the claim, because >> >>>>>>>>>> Substantiated. >> >>>>>>>>> Pffft. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I have never made any such statement, >> >>>>>>>>>>>> You have done. >> >>>>>>>>>>> See above. >> >>>>>>>>>> See above. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and you cannot give an example of me making such a statement because >>>>>>>>>>>>> I never have. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> You most certainly have. It was when you said you couldn't be bothered >>>>>>>>>>>> to adjust your "lifestyle" [bleaghhh] to eliminate products from it that >>>>>>>>>>>> caused harm to animals. You *do* adjust your "lifestyle" to eliminate >>>>>>>>>>>> similar harm to humans. >> >>>>>>>>>>> No, I don't. >> >>>>>>>>>> You do. >> >>>>>>>>> There are no "similar harms" to humans. The cases involving harm to >>>>>>>>> humans which actually occur are not relevantly similar. >> >>>>>>>> Bullshit. You wouldn't hesitate to boycott a company that engaged in >>>>>>>> far less harm to humans' interests than those companies whose products >>>>>>>> you consume do in fact cause to animals. >> >>>>>>> It's not bullshit. I've already explained it. >> >>>>>> You didn't - you waffled with bullshit, as usual. >> >>>>>> It is fully established that you give different consideration to the >>>>>> interests of animals than you do to humans. >> >>>>> Wrong. >> >>>> Nope. I'm right. Everyone knows it, too. >> >>> Much joy may this fact bring you. >> >> It does. > > Good to hear. Yes. |
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On 4/19/2012 11:15 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 20, 7:43 am, George > wrote: >> On 4/19/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Apr 19, 11:52 pm, > wrote: >>>> > wrote in message >> >>>> ... >> >>>>> On Apr 13, 12:26 am, > wrote: >>>>>> > wrote >> >>>>>>> On Apr 13, 12:00 am, > wrote: >>>>>>>> > 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? >> >>>>> You mean my justification for continuing to buy the products of plant- >>>>> based agriculture? >> >>>> I mean what I said. You said that giving special priority to your own >>>> interests required a justification, what is yours? >> >>> If you are referring to my buying products whose production harms >>> animals, my justification for that is that it gives me opportunities >>> to reduce other forms of suffering >> >> Bullshit. You buy the products whose production harms animals simply >> because you like them. At no time and in no way do you calculate that >> buy some amount of harm-causing product X will enable you to buy less >> harm-causing product Y. Cut the bullshit. >> > > I was referring to the fact that buying the products of plant-based > agriculture is the only way that I can hold down my current job, which > gives me opportunities to donate money to charities which are > effective at reducing suffering in the Third World. Thus, overall I > reduce suffering to a greater extent than I otherwise would. Bullshit. You don't choose your work/leisure/consumption basket of goods and services with a goal to maximizing your contribution to suffering reduction. Cut the bullshit. >> You buy stuff because you like it. In terms of the products you *do* >> buy, you don't engage in any sort of calculation to see how it fits into >> an overall strategy of harm reduction. >> > > But I do engage in research about what are the most effective > strategies for suffering reduction No, you don't. The basic fact is, you lead your life in such a way that you are giving unequal consideration to human and animal interests. If you learned that human interests were as casually harmed by the production of some product you consume as animal interests are harmed, in ways known to you, by products you do consume, you would stop consuming those products in the first group. You make more effort to know and pay more attention to how the welfare of humans is affected by the products you consume or might consume than you do with respect to animals. For example, you are aware of allegations of terrible working conditions for Chinese workers in factories and facilities that make Apple Computer products. You are aware of them, and you expect the allegations to be investigated and, if found to be true, remediated. You *do not care* about agricultural practices that harm animals in the course of producing the foods you eat. You just close your eyes to it, say it's not really of any concern to you. You're a speciesist hypocrite: proved. |
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On Apr 20, 5:22*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/19/2012 11:09 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 7:39 am, George > *wrote: > >> On 4/19/2012 10:20 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Apr 20, 1:52 am, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 4/19/2012 1:46 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Apr 19, 4:46 pm, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 4/19/2012 4:19 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Apr 18, 9:41 pm, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 12:09 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 8:39 pm, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 10:45 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 5:13 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 6:06 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 7:38 am, > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > * * * * * * *wrote in message > > ... > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 9:25 am, > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > * * * * * * *wrote > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you're right that it is highly controversial, and I never > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested otherwise, but he confirmed my belief that the majority > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion of ethicists is that different amounts of consideration based > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on species is something that needs to be justified, the burden of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof is on the speciesist. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The consideration differences that exist in so-called "speciesism" are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually based on species. One thought experiment to illustrate would be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imagine that a friendly extraterrestrial race of beings arrived on earth > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that had superior intellectual capacities to humans. That species would > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> automatically be given full consideration equal to humans, and it would > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be based on species, it would be based on the totality of the entire > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constellation of capacities inherent *in* the species. The reason that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "isms" like racism and sexism are wrong is that they are based on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misconceptions about the capacities of the groups they discriminate > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The discrimination we have against sea sponges is not based on a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misconception. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's your proof, and explanation. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But when confronted with two cases, one involving a member of your own > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> species who lacks the usual capacities for your species > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're talking about abilities, not capacities. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> You are - you're just too thick to realize it. *That's what I was trying > >>>>>>>>>>>> to explain to you with the discussion of actuality and potentiality, but > >>>>>>>>>>>> your plankiness prevented you from grasping it. > > >>>>>>>>>>> There was no discussion. > > >>>>>>>>>> There was. *You didn't contribute anything to it, though. > > >>>>>>>>> I asked you to explain what you meant by "potential" and you > >>>>>>>>> explicitly refused to tell me. > > >>>>>>>> That's a lie. > > >>>>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/talk....g/7083c141346b... > > >>>>>> No; this: > > >>>>>> * * * * *You, cluelessly: > >>>>>> * * * * *What do you mean by "potentiality"? > > >>>>>> * * * * *Me, helpfully: > >>>>>> * * * * *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. > > >>>>>> I explained it, cocksucker, in plain English. *The fact you cynically > >>>>>> pretended not to understand it is not my problem. > > >>>>>> You're a very bad liar, Woopert - a liar, to be sure, but a very bad one. > > >>>>> No, actually, in that passage from yourself which you quoted you do > >>>>> not explain what you mean by "potentiality". > > >>>> I believe English is your native tongue, and by talking about having "the > >>>> potential to be or to become a moral actor", I describe it in terms you > >>>> ought to be able to understand. *If you say you don't, then you're > >>>> either retarded or a liar. > > >>> Yes, I can understand what that phrase would usually mean, but on that > >>> interpretation it would not be plausible that every human has the > >>> potential to be a moral actor, as you claimed. > > >> /Ex ante/, knowing only that an entity is human, then it does have the > >> potential to be a moral actor. *You know this. > > > "Ex ante" means "before the event"; I don't think you're applying that > > phrase correctly. > > > It's obviously not true that all humans have the potential for moral > > agency. > > Use /a priori/ if it makes you feel any better, you nitpicking ****. > > /A priori/, knowing only that an entity you are going to consider is a > living human, then it does have the potential to be a moral actor, and > you know it. No. > You *expect* the human to be, or to develop to become, a > moral actor. You probably would expect it in the absence of further information, because that is was happens with typical humans, but you don't know it a priori. > If it doesn't, something is wrong; the human has a defect. > * Being human doesn't mean simply a pure Cambridge relation with other > humans. *It means something about the faculties a human ought to have. > There are biological criteria for whether you are a member of the species Homo sapiens, those are the criteria. There are other properties that are typically associated with being human, but not universally so. > There is something teleologically important about the observation that > "humans uniquely possess the capacity for moral agency that leads to > rights." *This is not a statistical observation about "all" or "the > overwhelming majority of" or "most" or "some" humans. *It is an > observation about humans as a category. *When you ****witted "aras" > start dwelling on individuals, you're completely missing the point. > This is the thing you ****wits simply don't get - or more likely, *will > not* get. > > In addition to the amc missing the point entirely, the way "aras" got > there is completely specious and invalid. *You started with a position > that simply feels right, intuitively, to you, and then you started > scrabbling around trying to find some support for it. *The amc is > something you backed into, not something you thought of and *then* > followed to a logical conclusion. *That's why you can't see its > inadequacy, and it's why you fundamentally don't understand species > normality. *You really don't, and because of a basic intellectual > dishonesty and charlatanism, you never will. This is a critique of the argument from species normality: http://www.aynrandstudies.com/jars/a...ahamnnobis.pdf |
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On Apr 20, 5:24*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/19/2012 11:11 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 7:40 am, George > *wrote: > >> On 4/19/2012 10:25 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Apr 20, 1:53 am, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 4/19/2012 1:47 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Apr 19, 4:47 pm, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 4/19/2012 4:20 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Apr 18, 9:41 pm, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 12:09 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 8:47 pm, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 10:48 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 5:15 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 6:06 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 1:31 am, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2012 1:34 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 9:25 pm, George > * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2012 11:10 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 4:01 pm, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2012 11:47 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 8:53 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2012 11:13 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 4:46 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 11:17 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 6:37 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 8:44 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 5:37 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 8:19 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 4:58 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 6:32 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, it just degenerates into an exchange of contrary assertions > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about who has the burden of proof > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have claimed not only that the burden of proof in terms of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justifying "speciesism" is on those who rely on it, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I have claimed that, and I have also claimed that most ethicists > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree on this point, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're full of shit on that point. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, my friend who is doing a PhD in metaethics doesn't think so, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your "ara" radical pal is a lying partisan. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not talking about John Hadley. It's another guy, and he's not an > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ARA. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He's still a radical lying partisan. *You're trying to appeal to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> authority, when the credentials of the so-called authority are not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> established. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is someone who is doing a PhD in metaethics, and he is not an ARA. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's nice. *I still don't see that he would be qualified to say that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "default position" of ethics is that equal consideration ought to be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given to entities' interests irrespective of species.. *That's a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *normative* ethical prescription. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite, but in the course of doing a PhD in metaethics one becomes > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite knowledgeable about normative ethics as well. The different > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> areas of moral philosophy are linked. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It also is a highly controversial one, disputed by many people in the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field of ethics and elsewhere. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you're right that it is highly controversial, and I never > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested otherwise, but he confirmed my belief that the majority > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion of ethicists is that different amounts of consideration based > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on species is something that needs to be justified, the burden of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof is on the speciesist. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is reasonable to suppose that he would be better-informed about the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter than you. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Meta-ethics is not normative ethics. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that. My remark still stands. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your remark is bullshit. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, it's the obvious truth. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep piling up > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the burdens of proof that you then shirk. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you want me to try to prove? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of it. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of what? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of your claims. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you name a claim I've made that I haven't proved? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes: *that equal consideration is due animals' interests. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay. So you believe all human interests are entitled to equal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration, yes? Or no? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No - and neither do you. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you believe about humans, then? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That we all establish hierarchies or circles. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you don't believe in any notion of human equality? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On every possible dimension? *No, of course not - and neither do you. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know what you mean by "on every possible dimension". > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you do. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> You are a foolish person. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> No. *You don't believe it, either. > > >>>>>>>>>>> If you really think I don't believe it then that is rather amusing. > > >>>>>>>>>> You don't find anything amusing about it. > > >>>>>>>>> Again, if you really believe that then that too is rather amusing. > > >>>>>>>> Same again. > > >>>>>>> So, where exactly does your confidence in these beliefs of yours come > >>>>>>> from? > > >>>>>> That's kind of a pointless question. > > >>>>> Well, it was a question that was of interest to me. > > >>>> No, it wasn't. *It was just time-wasting. > > >>> Well, you were the one who turned the conversation into a time-wasting > >>> exercise, > > >> Nope. *That's always you. > > > This belief of yours strikes me as without rational foundation. > > Funny - that's what I think about the entire "ar" proposition. > I know. > >>>>>> Here's a better one, psycho: > >>>>>> where does your impulse to waste time originate? > > >>>>> Why is that a better question? > > >>>> It's one that is of interest to me, and I care more about my interests > >>>> than yours, which you tell me is ethical. > > >>> Well, ask yourself where does your impulse to waste time originate, > > >> I don't have that impulse; you do. > > > So you don't have the impulse to waste time; this conversation has > > been a profitable use of time for you? > > Yes, of course - by presumption, as I am rational economic actor. What has it done for you? |
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On Apr 20, 5:31*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/19/2012 11:15 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 7:43 am, George > *wrote: > >> On 4/19/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Apr 19, 11:52 pm, > * *wrote: > >>>> > * *wrote in message > > ... > > >>>>> On Apr 13, 12:26 am, > * *wrote: > >>>>>> > * *wrote > > >>>>>>> On Apr 13, 12:00 am, > * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> > * *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. |
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On 4/20/2012 8:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 20, 5:22 pm, George > wrote: >> On 4/19/2012 11:09 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Apr 20, 7:39 am, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/19/2012 10:20 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 20, 1:52 am, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 4/19/2012 1:46 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 19, 4:46 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 4:19 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 9:41 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 12:09 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 8:39 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 10:45 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 5:13 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 6:06 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 7:38 am, > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote in message >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 9:25 am, > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you're right that it is highly controversial, and I never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested otherwise, but he confirmed my belief that the majority >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion of ethicists is that different amounts of consideration based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on species is something that needs to be justified, the burden of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof is on the speciesist. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The consideration differences that exist in so-called "speciesism" are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually based on species. One thought experiment to illustrate would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imagine that a friendly extraterrestrial race of beings arrived on earth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that had superior intellectual capacities to humans. That species would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> automatically be given full consideration equal to humans, and it would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be based on species, it would be based on the totality of the entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constellation of capacities inherent *in* the species. The reason that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "isms" like racism and sexism are wrong is that they are based on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misconceptions about the capacities of the groups they discriminate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The discrimination we have against sea sponges is not based on a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misconception. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's your proof, and explanation. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But when confronted with two cases, one involving a member of your own >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> species who lacks the usual capacities for your species >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're talking about abilities, not capacities. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are - you're just too thick to realize it. That's what I was trying >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to explain to you with the discussion of actuality and potentiality, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>> your plankiness prevented you from grasping it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> There was no discussion. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> There was. You didn't contribute anything to it, though. >> >>>>>>>>>>> I asked you to explain what you meant by "potential" and you >>>>>>>>>>> explicitly refused to tell me. >> >>>>>>>>>> That's a lie. >> >>>>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk....g/7083c141346b... >> >>>>>>>> No; this: >> >>>>>>>> You, cluelessly: >>>>>>>> What do you mean by "potentiality"? >> >>>>>>>> Me, helpfully: >>>>>>>> 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. >> >>>>>>>> I explained it, cocksucker, in plain English. The fact you cynically >>>>>>>> pretended not to understand it is not my problem. >> >>>>>>>> You're a very bad liar, Woopert - a liar, to be sure, but a very bad one. >> >>>>>>> No, actually, in that passage from yourself which you quoted you do >>>>>>> not explain what you mean by "potentiality". >> >>>>>> I believe English is your native tongue, and by talking about having "the >>>>>> potential to be or to become a moral actor", I describe it in terms you >>>>>> ought to be able to understand. If you say you don't, then you're >>>>>> either retarded or a liar. >> >>>>> Yes, I can understand what that phrase would usually mean, but on that >>>>> interpretation it would not be plausible that every human has the >>>>> potential to be a moral actor, as you claimed. >> >>>> /Ex ante/, knowing only that an entity is human, then it does have the >>>> potential to be a moral actor. You know this. >> >>> "Ex ante" means "before the event"; I don't think you're applying that >>> phrase correctly. >> >>> It's obviously not true that all humans have the potential for moral >>> agency. >> >> Use /a priori/ if it makes you feel any better, you nitpicking ****. >> >> /A priori/, knowing only that an entity you are going to consider is a >> living human, then it does have the potential to be a moral actor, and >> you know it. > > No. Yes. >> You *expect* the human to be, or to develop to become, a >> moral actor. > > You probably would expect it in the absence of further information, What the **** do you think /a priori/ refers to, you stupid prick? >> If it doesn't, something is wrong; the human has a defect. >> Being human doesn't mean simply a pure Cambridge relation with other >> humans. It means something about the faculties a human ought to have. >> > > There are biological criteria for whether you are a member of the > species Homo sapiens, those are the criteria. There are other > properties that are typically associated with being human, but not > universally so. You didn't refute what I said. A human is *supposed* to be a moral agent. It's what we *expect* to happen. When it doesn't, something is wrong. A human also is expected to have two legs and two arms, and when it doesn't, something is wrong. There is meaning to the statement "humans are moral agents", and that meaning is in no way merely statistical. >> There is something teleologically important about the observation that >> "humans uniquely possess the capacity for moral agency that leads to >> rights." This is not a statistical observation about "all" or "the >> overwhelming majority of" or "most" or "some" humans. It is an >> observation about humans as a category. When you ****witted "aras" >> start dwelling on individuals, you're completely missing the point. >> This is the thing you ****wits simply don't get - or more likely, *will >> not* get. >> >> In addition to the amc missing the point entirely, the way "aras" got >> there is completely specious and invalid. You started with a position >> that simply feels right, intuitively, to you, and then you started >> scrabbling around trying to find some support for it. The amc is >> something you backed into, not something you thought of and *then* >> followed to a logical conclusion. That's why you can't see its >> inadequacy, and it's why you fundamentally don't understand species >> normality. You really don't, and because of a basic intellectual >> dishonesty and charlatanism, you never will. > > This is a critique of the argument from species normality: > > http://www.aynrandstudies.com/jars/a...ahamnnobis.pdf They don't get it, either. You're ****ed, Woopert. You're backed into a corner. What you and those two professional ****wits think is your "ar" nuke is in fact a hunk of junk. You *still* are thinking statistically, not teleologically as you ought to be. |
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On 4/20/2012 8:55 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 20, 5:24 pm, George > wrote: >> On 4/19/2012 11:11 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Apr 20, 7:40 am, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/19/2012 10:25 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 20, 1:53 am, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 4/19/2012 1:47 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 19, 4:47 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 4:20 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 9:41 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 12:09 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 8:47 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 10:48 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 5:15 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 6:06 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 1:31 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2012 1:34 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 9:25 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2012 11:10 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 4:01 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2012 11:47 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 8:53 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2012 11:13 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 4:46 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 11:17 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 6:37 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 8:44 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 5:37 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 8:19 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 4:58 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 6:32 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, it just degenerates into an exchange of contrary assertions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about who has the burden of proof >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have claimed not only that the burden of proof in terms of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justifying "speciesism" is on those who rely on it, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I have claimed that, and I have also claimed that most ethicists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree on this point, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're full of shit on that point. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, my friend who is doing a PhD in metaethics doesn't think so, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your "ara" radical pal is a lying partisan. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not talking about John Hadley. It's another guy, and he's not an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ARA. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He's still a radical lying partisan. You're trying to appeal to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> authority, when the credentials of the so-called authority are not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> established. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is someone who is doing a PhD in metaethics, and he is not an ARA. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's nice. I still don't see that he would be qualified to say that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "default position" of ethics is that equal consideration ought to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given to entities' interests irrespective of species. That's a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *normative* ethical prescription. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite, but in the course of doing a PhD in metaethics one becomes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite knowledgeable about normative ethics as well. The different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> areas of moral philosophy are linked. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It also is a highly controversial one, disputed by many people in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field of ethics and elsewhere. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you're right that it is highly controversial, and I never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested otherwise, but he confirmed my belief that the majority >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion of ethicists is that different amounts of consideration based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on species is something that needs to be justified, the burden of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof is on the speciesist. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is reasonable to suppose that he would be better-informed about the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter than you. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Meta-ethics is not normative ethics. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that. My remark still stands. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your remark is bullshit. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, it's the obvious truth. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep piling up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the burdens of proof that you then shirk. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you want me to try to prove? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of what? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of your claims. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you name a claim I've made that I haven't proved? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes: that equal consideration is due animals' interests. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay. So you believe all human interests are entitled to equal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration, yes? Or no? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No - and neither do you. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you believe about humans, then? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That we all establish hierarchies or circles. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you don't believe in any notion of human equality? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On every possible dimension? No, of course not - and neither do you. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know what you mean by "on every possible dimension". >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you do. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are a foolish person. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. You don't believe it, either. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you really think I don't believe it then that is rather amusing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> You don't find anything amusing about it. >> >>>>>>>>>>> Again, if you really believe that then that too is rather amusing. >> >>>>>>>>>> Same again. >> >>>>>>>>> So, where exactly does your confidence in these beliefs of yours come >>>>>>>>> from? >> >>>>>>>> That's kind of a pointless question. >> >>>>>>> Well, it was a question that was of interest to me. >> >>>>>> No, it wasn't. It was just time-wasting. >> >>>>> Well, you were the one who turned the conversation into a time-wasting >>>>> exercise, >> >>>> Nope. That's always you. >> >>> This belief of yours strikes me as without rational foundation. >> >> Funny - that's what I think about the entire "ar" proposition. >> > > I know. So does almost everyone. >>>>>>>> Here's a better one, psycho: >>>>>>>> where does your impulse to waste time originate? >> >>>>>>> Why is that a better question? >> >>>>>> It's one that is of interest to me, and I care more about my interests >>>>>> than yours, which you tell me is ethical. >> >>>>> Well, ask yourself where does your impulse to waste time originate, >> >>>> I don't have that impulse; you do. >> >>> So you don't have the impulse to waste time; this conversation has >>> been a profitable use of time for you? >> >> Yes, of course - by presumption, as I am rational economic actor. > > What has it done for you? What do you care? |
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On 4/20/2012 8:59 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 20, 5:31 pm, George > wrote: >> On 4/19/2012 11:15 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Apr 20, 7:43 am, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/19/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 19, 11:52 pm, > wrote: >>>>>> > wrote in message >> >>>>>> ... >> >>>>>>> On Apr 13, 12:26 am, > wrote: >>>>>>>> > wrote >> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 13, 12:00 am, > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> > 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? >> >>>>>>> You mean my justification for continuing to buy the products of plant- >>>>>>> based agriculture? >> >>>>>> I mean what I said. You said that giving special priority to your own >>>>>> interests required a justification, what is yours? >> >>>>> If you are referring to my buying products whose production harms >>>>> animals, my justification for that is that it gives me opportunities >>>>> to reduce other forms of suffering >> >>>> Bullshit. You buy the products whose production harms animals simply >>>> because you like them. At no time and in no way do you calculate that >>>> buy some amount of harm-causing product X will enable you to buy less >>>> harm-causing product Y. Cut the bullshit. >> >>> I was referring to the fact that buying the products of plant-based >>> agriculture is the only way that I can hold down my current job, which >>> gives me opportunities to donate money to charities which are >>> effective at reducing suffering in the Third World. Thus, overall I >>> reduce suffering to a greater extent than I otherwise would. >> >> Bullshit. You don't choose your work/leisure/consumption basket of >> goods and services with a goal to maximizing your contribution to >> suffering reduction. >> > > Not to maximise it, no, but contributing to suffering reduction is one > of my goals, and my consumption of the products of plant-based > agriculture is rational with respect to this goal, for the reasons > explained. > >> Cut the bullshit. >> >>>> You buy stuff because you like it. In terms of the products you *do* >>>> buy, you don't engage in any sort of calculation to see how it fits into >>>> an overall strategy of harm reduction. >> >>> But I do engage in research about what are the most effective >>> strategies for suffering reduction >> >> No, you don't. >> > > Yes, I do. You don't. You've said you don't. You say "there's no data", and you throw up your hands and quit. You do not do any research into how further to reduce harm. No "vegan" does. Stop lying. >> The basic fact is, you lead your life in such a way that you are giving >> unequal consideration to human and animal interests. If you learned >> that human interests were as casually harmed by the production of some >> product you consume as animal interests are harmed, in ways known to >> you, by products you do consume, you would stop consuming those products >> in the first group. > > Not if the burden of doing so was comparable to the burden of my > boycotting commercial agriculture. You're still bullshitting. You're trying to play a lawyerly game, and it fails from the start. >> You make more effort to know and pay more attention >> to how the welfare of humans is affected by the products you consume or >> might consume than you do with respect to animals. > > No. Yes. Proved. >> For example, you are >> aware of allegations of terrible working conditions for Chinese workers >> in factories and facilities that make Apple Computer products. You are >> aware of them, and you expect the allegations to be investigated and, if >> found to be true, remediated. You *do not care* about agricultural >> practices that harm animals in the course of producing the foods you >> eat. You just close your eyes to it, say it's not really of any concern >> to you. >> > > You have no rational grounds for saying I don't care about it. I do. You prove it for us every time. You're massively a hypocrite. |
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On Apr 20, 6:17*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/20/2012 8:54 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 5:22 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 4/19/2012 11:09 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Apr 20, 7:39 am, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 4/19/2012 10:20 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Apr 20, 1:52 am, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 4/19/2012 1:46 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Apr 19, 4:46 pm, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 4:19 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 9:41 pm, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 12:09 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 8:39 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 10:45 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 5:13 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 6:06 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 7:38 am, > * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > * * * * * * * *wrote in message > > ... > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 9:25 am, > * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > * * * * * * * *wrote > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you're right that it is highly controversial, and I never > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested otherwise, but he confirmed my belief that the majority > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion of ethicists is that different amounts of consideration based > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on species is something that needs to be justified, the burden of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof is on the speciesist. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The consideration differences that exist in so-called "speciesism" are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually based on species. One thought experiment to illustrate would be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imagine that a friendly extraterrestrial race of beings arrived on earth > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that had superior intellectual capacities to humans. That species would > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> automatically be given full consideration equal to humans, and it would > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be based on species, it would be based on the totality of the entire > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constellation of capacities inherent *in* the species. The reason that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "isms" like racism and sexism are wrong is that they are based on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misconceptions about the capacities of the groups they discriminate > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The discrimination we have against sea sponges is not based on a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misconception. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's your proof, and explanation. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But when confronted with two cases, one involving a member of your own > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> species who lacks the usual capacities for your species > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're talking about abilities, not capacities. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are - you're just too thick to realize it. *That's what I was trying > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to explain to you with the discussion of actuality and potentiality, but > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> your plankiness prevented you from grasping it. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> There was no discussion. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> There was. *You didn't contribute anything to it, though. > > >>>>>>>>>>> I asked you to explain what you meant by "potential" and you > >>>>>>>>>>> explicitly refused to tell me. > > >>>>>>>>>> That's a lie. > > >>>>>>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/talk....g/7083c141346b... > > >>>>>>>> No; this: > > >>>>>>>> * * * * * You, cluelessly: > >>>>>>>> * * * * * What do you mean by "potentiality"? > > >>>>>>>> * * * * * Me, helpfully: > >>>>>>>> * * * * * 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. > > >>>>>>>> I explained it, cocksucker, in plain English. *The fact you cynically > >>>>>>>> pretended not to understand it is not my problem. > > >>>>>>>> You're a very bad liar, Woopert - a liar, to be sure, but a very bad one. > > >>>>>>> No, actually, in that passage from yourself which you quoted you do > >>>>>>> not explain what you mean by "potentiality". > > >>>>>> I believe English is your native tongue, and by talking about having "the > >>>>>> potential to be or to become a moral actor", I describe it in terms you > >>>>>> ought to be able to understand. *If you say you don't, then you're > >>>>>> either retarded or a liar. > > >>>>> Yes, I can understand what that phrase would usually mean, but on that > >>>>> interpretation it would not be plausible that every human has the > >>>>> potential to be a moral actor, as you claimed. > > >>>> /Ex ante/, knowing only that an entity is human, then it does have the > >>>> potential to be a moral actor. *You know this. > > >>> "Ex ante" means "before the event"; I don't think you're applying that > >>> phrase correctly. > > >>> It's obviously not true that all humans have the potential for moral > >>> agency. > > >> Use /a priori/ if it makes you feel any better, you nitpicking ****. > > >> /A priori/, knowing only that an entity you are going to consider is a > >> living human, then it does have the potential to be a moral actor, and > >> you know it. > > > No. > > Yes. > It would have that potential in the great majority of cases, but not in every case. > >> You *expect* the human to be, or to develop to become, a > >> moral actor. > > > You probably would expect it in the absence of further information, > > What the **** do you think /a priori/ refers to, you stupid prick? > It refers to something you know for certain. > >> If it doesn't, something is wrong; the human has a defect. > >> * *Being human doesn't mean simply a pure Cambridge relation with other > >> humans. *It means something about the faculties a human ought to have. > > > There are biological criteria for whether you are a member of the > > species Homo sapiens, those are the criteria. There are other > > properties that are typically associated with being human, but not > > universally so. > > You didn't refute what I said. *A human is *supposed* to be a moral > agent. *It's what we *expect* to happen. *When it doesn't, something is > wrong. *A human also is expected to have two legs and two arms, and when > it doesn't, something is wrong. *There is meaning to the statement > "humans are moral agents", and that meaning is in no way merely statistical. > Yes, all right. > > > > > > > > > >> There is something teleologically important about the observation that > >> "humans uniquely possess the capacity for moral agency that leads to > >> rights." *This is not a statistical observation about "all" or "the > >> overwhelming majority of" or "most" or "some" humans. *It is an > >> observation about humans as a category. *When you ****witted "aras" > >> start dwelling on individuals, you're completely missing the point. > >> This is the thing you ****wits simply don't get - or more likely, *will > >> not* get. > > >> In addition to the amc missing the point entirely, the way "aras" got > >> there is completely specious and invalid. *You started with a position > >> that simply feels right, intuitively, to you, and then you started > >> scrabbling around trying to find some support for it. *The amc is > >> something you backed into, not something you thought of and *then* > >> followed to a logical conclusion. *That's why you can't see its > >> inadequacy, and it's why you fundamentally don't understand species > >> normality. *You really don't, and because of a basic intellectual > >> dishonesty and charlatanism, you never will. > > > This is a critique of the argument from species normality: > > >http://www.aynrandstudies.com/jars/a...s8_2dgrahamnno... > > They don't get it, either. > > You're ****ed, Woopert. *You're backed into a corner. *What you and > those two professional ****wits think is your "ar" nuke is in fact a > hunk of junk. *You *still* are thinking statistically, not > teleologically as you ought to be. What is it to think teleologically and why ought I to do it? |
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On Apr 20, 6:24*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/20/2012 8:55 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > On Apr 20, 5:24 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 4/19/2012 11:11 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Apr 20, 7:40 am, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 4/19/2012 10:25 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Apr 20, 1:53 am, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 4/19/2012 1:47 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Apr 19, 4:47 pm, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 4:20 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 9:41 pm, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 12:09 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 8:47 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 10:48 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 5:15 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 6:06 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 1:31 am, George > * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2012 1:34 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 9:25 pm, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2012 11:10 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 4:01 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2012 11:47 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 8:53 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2012 11:13 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 4:46 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 11:17 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 6:37 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 8:44 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 5:37 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 8:19 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 4:58 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 6:32 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, it just degenerates into an exchange of contrary assertions > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about who has the burden of proof > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have claimed not only that the burden of proof in terms of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justifying "speciesism" is on those who rely on it, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I have claimed that, and I have also claimed that most ethicists > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree on this point, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're full of shit on that point. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, my friend who is doing a PhD in metaethics doesn't think so, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your "ara" radical pal is a lying partisan. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not talking about John Hadley. It's another guy, and he's not an > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ARA. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He's still a radical lying partisan. *You're trying to appeal to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> authority, when the credentials of the so-called authority are not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> established. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is someone who is doing a PhD in metaethics, and he is not an ARA. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's nice. *I still don't see that he would be qualified to say that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "default position" of ethics is that equal consideration ought to be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given to entities' interests irrespective of species. *That's a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *normative* ethical prescription. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite, but in the course of doing a PhD in metaethics one becomes > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite knowledgeable about normative ethics as well. The different > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> areas of moral philosophy are linked. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It also is a highly controversial one, disputed by many people in the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field of ethics and elsewhere. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you're right that it is highly controversial, and I never > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested otherwise, but he confirmed my belief that the majority > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion of ethicists is that different amounts of consideration based > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on species is something that needs to be justified, the burden of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof is on the speciesist. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is reasonable to suppose that he would be better-informed about the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter than you. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Meta-ethics is not normative ethics. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that. My remark still stands. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your remark is bullshit. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, it's the obvious truth. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep piling up > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the burdens of proof that you then shirk. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you want me to try to prove? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of it. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of what? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of your claims. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you name a claim I've made that I haven't proved? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes: *that equal consideration is due animals' interests. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay. So you believe all human interests are entitled to equal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration, yes? Or no? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No - and neither do you. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you believe about humans, then? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That we all establish hierarchies or circles. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you don't believe in any notion of human equality? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On every possible dimension? *No, of course not - and neither do you. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know what you mean by "on every possible dimension". > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you do. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are a foolish person. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. *You don't believe it, either. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you really think I don't believe it then that is rather amusing. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> You don't find anything amusing about it. > > >>>>>>>>>>> Again, if you really believe that then that too is rather amusing. > > >>>>>>>>>> Same again. > > >>>>>>>>> So, where exactly does your confidence in these beliefs of yours come > >>>>>>>>> from? > > >>>>>>>> That's kind of a pointless question. > > >>>>>>> Well, it was a question that was of interest to me. > > >>>>>> No, it wasn't. *It was just time-wasting. > > >>>>> Well, you were the one who turned the conversation into a time-wasting > >>>>> exercise, > > >>>> Nope. *That's always you. > > >>> This belief of yours strikes me as without rational foundation. > > >> Funny - that's what I think about the entire "ar" proposition. > > > I know. > > So does almost everyone. > No, only those who are familiar with your newsgroup postings. > >>>>>>>> Here's a better one, psycho: > >>>>>>>> where does your impulse to waste time originate? > > >>>>>>> Why is that a better question? > > >>>>>> It's one that is of interest to me, and I care more about my interests > >>>>>> than yours, which you tell me is ethical. > > >>>>> Well, ask yourself where does your impulse to waste time originate, > > >>>> I don't have that impulse; you do. > > >>> So you don't have the impulse to waste time; this conversation has > >>> been a profitable use of time for you? > > >> Yes, of course - by presumption, as I am rational economic actor. > > > What has it done for you? > > What do you care? You've piqued my curiosity. |
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On Apr 20, 6:26*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/20/2012 8:59 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 5:31 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 4/19/2012 11:15 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Apr 20, 7:43 am, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 4/19/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Apr 19, 11:52 pm, > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> > * * *wrote in message > > ... > > >>>>>>> On Apr 13, 12:26 am, > * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> > * * *wrote > > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 13, 12:00 am, > * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > * * *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? > > >>>>>>> You mean my justification for continuing to buy the products of plant- > >>>>>>> based agriculture? > > >>>>>> I mean what I said. You said that giving special priority to your own > >>>>>> interests required a justification, what is yours? > > >>>>> If you are referring to my buying products whose production harms > >>>>> animals, my justification for that is that it gives me opportunities > >>>>> to reduce other forms of suffering > > >>>> Bullshit. *You buy the products whose production harms animals simply > >>>> because you like them. *At no time and in no way do you calculate that > >>>> buy some amount of harm-causing product X will enable you to buy less > >>>> harm-causing product Y. *Cut the bullshit. > > >>> I was referring to the fact that buying the products of plant-based > >>> agriculture is the only way that I can hold down my current job, which > >>> gives me opportunities to donate money to charities which are > >>> effective at reducing suffering in the Third World. Thus, overall I > >>> reduce suffering to a greater extent than I otherwise would. > > >> Bullshit. *You don't choose your work/leisure/consumption basket of > >> goods and services with a goal to maximizing your contribution to > >> suffering reduction. > > > Not to maximise it, no, but contributing to suffering reduction is one > > of my goals, and my consumption of the products of plant-based > > agriculture is rational with respect to this goal, for the reasons > > explained. > > >> Cut the bullshit. > > >>>> You buy stuff because you like it. *In terms of the products you *do* > >>>> buy, you don't engage in any sort of calculation to see how it fits into > >>>> an overall strategy of harm reduction. > > >>> But I do engage in research about what are the most effective > >>> strategies for suffering reduction > > >> No, you don't. > > > Yes, I do. > > You don't. *You've said you don't. *You say "there's no data", and you > throw up your hands and quit. *You do not do any research into how > further to reduce harm. *No "vegan" does. *Stop lying. > I wasn't actually referring to efforts to reduce the suffering associated with producing the food I eat. I have made some efforts in that direction but reliable data is hard to get hold of, and I think my research efforts are better invested in other things like which charities are most cost-effective at suffering reduction. I do do that, and that is what I was referring to. In fact I have recently done some such research in order to prepare for writing a job application. > >> The basic fact is, you lead your life in such a way that you are giving > >> unequal consideration to human and animal interests. *If you learned > >> that human interests were as casually harmed by the production of some > >> product you consume as animal interests are harmed, in ways known to > >> you, by products you do consume, you would stop consuming those products > >> in the first group. > > > Not if the burden of doing so was comparable to the burden of my > > boycotting commercial agriculture. > > You're still bullshitting. What grounds do you have for thinking so? > You're trying to play a lawyerly game, and > it fails from the start. > Why? > >> You make more effort to know and pay more attention > >> to how the welfare of humans is affected by the products you consume or > >> might consume than you do with respect to animals. > > > No. > > Yes. *Proved. > You've offered no evidence for the contention whatsoever. > >> For example, you are > >> aware of allegations of terrible working conditions for Chinese workers > >> in factories and facilities that make Apple Computer products. *You are > >> aware of them, and you expect the allegations to be investigated and, if > >> found to be true, remediated. *You *do not care* about agricultural > >> practices that harm animals in the course of producing the foods you > >> eat. *You just close your eyes to it, say it's not really of any concern > >> to you. > > > You have no rational grounds for saying I don't care about it. > > I do. What are they? > You prove it for us every time. > > You're massively a hypocrite. So you keep saying, but I've yet to see any rational foundation for this contention. |
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
"Rupert" > wrote in message ... > On Apr 20, 8:42 am, "Dutch" > wrote: >> "Rupert" > wrote in message >> >> ... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Apr 20, 12:07 am, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message >> >> ... >> >> >> > On Apr 19, 10:13 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote >> >> >> >> > On Apr 18, 11:57 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> >> >> Sure there is. What are the cognitive capacities of say, a >> >> >> >> chicken, >> >> >> >> or >> >> >> >> a >> >> >> >> housefly? That is a broad question that recognizes that some >> >> >> >> chickens >> >> >> >> or >> >> >> >> houseflies may have been born retarded, have been hit by a blunt >> >> >> >> object, >> >> >> >> or >> >> >> >> on the other hand may be especially clever. The question can >> >> >> >> still >> >> >> >> answered >> >> >> >> though. It is different than asking, "what are the cognitive >> >> >> >> capacities >> >> >> >> of >> >> >> >> *that specific* chicken or housefly?", in which case there are >> >> >> >> assumptions >> >> >> >> involved. In either case you can be pretty damn confident of the >> >> >> >> upper >> >> >> >> limits, which is the main thing. Any being through some form of >> >> >> >> impairment >> >> >> >> may lose some or all of it's abilities, that is not what >> >> >> >> inherent >> >> >> >> capacity >> >> >> >> is about. >> >> >> >> > As I say, I don't believe you are using any meaningful notion of >> >> >> > "inherent capacity" here. >> >> >> >> Would you not concede that bats are born with the inherent capacity >> >> >> of >> >> >> navigation using sonar? >> >> >> > That sounds pretty reasonable to me, yes. >> >> >> That's what I mean by inherent capacity. When we think of bats one of >> >> the >> >> first things we think of is their sonar. Some bats undoubtedly for >> >> some >> >> reason don't have it, or it never develops properly, but it is in the >> >> DNA >> >> of >> >> bats. >> >> > It is in the DNA of bats in general, yes, if you were looking at an >> > individual bat who lacked the ability then whether or not the capacity >> > was still "in the DNA" would be a scientific research programme. >> >> >> But it's not the whole story of bats, they are also a *mammal that can >> >> fly*, that's another amazing inherent quality of the bat. They eat a >> >> lot >> >> of >> >> bugs too. So when we refer to "bats" we mean everything we know about >> >> "bats". We know a lot of other stuff about bats, That's what "species" >> >> relates, the accumulation of all the inherent capacities of a species >> >> . >> >> We >> >> relate to bats based on that, we do it for for worms and sponges and >> >> fruit >> >> flies, gorillas and humans. We don't give them equal consideration, we >> >> give >> >> them consideration based on their "kind" and all that implies. >> >> > Another option is to give each individual bat consideration based on >> > the abilities they actually possess. >> >> Give them all IQ tests? > > I don't see any good reason why that would be necessary. > >> The upper limit of their abilities is known and >> that's the only one that matters. Species are afforded consideration >> based >> on the upper limit of abilities of the most advanced known member of >> their >> species. > > Well, what sort of moral consideration do you believe that gorillas > are entitled to, for example? A lot. |
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
"Rupert" > wrote
> This is a critique of the argument from species normality: > > http://www.aynrandstudies.com/jars/a...ahamnnobis.pdf I haven't opened it yet but my guess is that it repeats the marginal cases fallacy. |
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On 4/20/2012 9:47 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 20, 6:17 pm, George > wrote: >> On 4/20/2012 8:54 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Apr 20, 5:22 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/19/2012 11:09 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 20, 7:39 am, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:20 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 20, 1:52 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 1:46 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 4:46 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 4:19 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 9:41 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 12:09 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 8:39 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 10:45 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 5:13 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 6:06 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 7:38 am, > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote in message >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 9:25 am, > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you're right that it is highly controversial, and I never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested otherwise, but he confirmed my belief that the majority >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion of ethicists is that different amounts of consideration based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on species is something that needs to be justified, the burden of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof is on the speciesist. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The consideration differences that exist in so-called "speciesism" are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually based on species. One thought experiment to illustrate would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imagine that a friendly extraterrestrial race of beings arrived on earth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that had superior intellectual capacities to humans. That species would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> automatically be given full consideration equal to humans, and it would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be based on species, it would be based on the totality of the entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constellation of capacities inherent *in* the species. The reason that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "isms" like racism and sexism are wrong is that they are based on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misconceptions about the capacities of the groups they discriminate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The discrimination we have against sea sponges is not based on a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misconception. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's your proof, and explanation. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But when confronted with two cases, one involving a member of your own >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> species who lacks the usual capacities for your species >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're talking about abilities, not capacities. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are - you're just too thick to realize it. That's what I was trying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to explain to you with the discussion of actuality and potentiality, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your plankiness prevented you from grasping it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was no discussion. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was. You didn't contribute anything to it, though. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you to explain what you meant by "potential" and you >>>>>>>>>>>>> explicitly refused to tell me. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> That's a lie. >> >>>>>>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk....g/7083c141346b... >> >>>>>>>>>> No; this: >> >>>>>>>>>> You, cluelessly: >>>>>>>>>> What do you mean by "potentiality"? >> >>>>>>>>>> Me, helpfully: >>>>>>>>>> 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. >> >>>>>>>>>> I explained it, cocksucker, in plain English. The fact you cynically >>>>>>>>>> pretended not to understand it is not my problem. >> >>>>>>>>>> You're a very bad liar, Woopert - a liar, to be sure, but a very bad one. >> >>>>>>>>> No, actually, in that passage from yourself which you quoted you do >>>>>>>>> not explain what you mean by "potentiality". >> >>>>>>>> I believe English is your native tongue, and by talking about having "the >>>>>>>> potential to be or to become a moral actor", I describe it in terms you >>>>>>>> ought to be able to understand. If you say you don't, then you're >>>>>>>> either retarded or a liar. >> >>>>>>> Yes, I can understand what that phrase would usually mean, but on that >>>>>>> interpretation it would not be plausible that every human has the >>>>>>> potential to be a moral actor, as you claimed. >> >>>>>> /Ex ante/, knowing only that an entity is human, then it does have the >>>>>> potential to be a moral actor. You know this. >> >>>>> "Ex ante" means "before the event"; I don't think you're applying that >>>>> phrase correctly. >> >>>>> It's obviously not true that all humans have the potential for moral >>>>> agency. >> >>>> Use /a priori/ if it makes you feel any better, you nitpicking ****. >> >>>> /A priori/, knowing only that an entity you are going to consider is a >>>> living human, then it does have the potential to be a moral actor, and >>>> you know it. >> >>> No. >> >> Yes. >> > > It would have that potential in the great majority of cases, but not > in every case. > >>>> You *expect* the human to be, or to develop to become, a >>>> moral actor. >> >>> You probably would expect it in the absence of further information, >> >> What the **** do you think /a priori/ refers to, you stupid prick? >> > > It refers to something you know for certain. > >>>> If it doesn't, something is wrong; the human has a defect. >>>> Being human doesn't mean simply a pure Cambridge relation with other >>>> humans. It means something about the faculties a human ought to have. >> >>> There are biological criteria for whether you are a member of the >>> species Homo sapiens, those are the criteria. There are other >>> properties that are typically associated with being human, but not >>> universally so. >> >> You didn't refute what I said. A human is *supposed* to be a moral >> agent. It's what we *expect* to happen. When it doesn't, something is >> wrong. A human also is expected to have two legs and two arms, and when >> it doesn't, something is wrong. There is meaning to the statement >> "humans are moral agents", and that meaning is in no way merely statistical. >> > > Yes, all right. Yet you're treating it as merely statistical. Therefore, you're getting the wrong meaning. |
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On 4/20/2012 9:47 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 20, 6:17 pm, George > wrote: >> On 4/20/2012 8:54 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Apr 20, 5:22 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/19/2012 11:09 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 20, 7:39 am, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:20 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 20, 1:52 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 1:46 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 4:46 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 4:19 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 9:41 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 12:09 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 8:39 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 10:45 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 5:13 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 6:06 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 7:38 am, > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote in message >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 9:25 am, > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you're right that it is highly controversial, and I never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested otherwise, but he confirmed my belief that the majority >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion of ethicists is that different amounts of consideration based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on species is something that needs to be justified, the burden of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof is on the speciesist. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The consideration differences that exist in so-called "speciesism" are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually based on species. One thought experiment to illustrate would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imagine that a friendly extraterrestrial race of beings arrived on earth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that had superior intellectual capacities to humans. That species would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> automatically be given full consideration equal to humans, and it would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be based on species, it would be based on the totality of the entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constellation of capacities inherent *in* the species. The reason that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "isms" like racism and sexism are wrong is that they are based on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misconceptions about the capacities of the groups they discriminate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The discrimination we have against sea sponges is not based on a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misconception. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's your proof, and explanation. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But when confronted with two cases, one involving a member of your own >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> species who lacks the usual capacities for your species >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're talking about abilities, not capacities. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are - you're just too thick to realize it. That's what I was trying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to explain to you with the discussion of actuality and potentiality, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your plankiness prevented you from grasping it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was no discussion. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was. You didn't contribute anything to it, though. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you to explain what you meant by "potential" and you >>>>>>>>>>>>> explicitly refused to tell me. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> That's a lie. >> >>>>>>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk....g/7083c141346b... >> >>>>>>>>>> No; this: >> >>>>>>>>>> You, cluelessly: >>>>>>>>>> What do you mean by "potentiality"? >> >>>>>>>>>> Me, helpfully: >>>>>>>>>> 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. >> >>>>>>>>>> I explained it, cocksucker, in plain English. The fact you cynically >>>>>>>>>> pretended not to understand it is not my problem. >> >>>>>>>>>> You're a very bad liar, Woopert - a liar, to be sure, but a very bad one. >> >>>>>>>>> No, actually, in that passage from yourself which you quoted you do >>>>>>>>> not explain what you mean by "potentiality". >> >>>>>>>> I believe English is your native tongue, and by talking about having "the >>>>>>>> potential to be or to become a moral actor", I describe it in terms you >>>>>>>> ought to be able to understand. If you say you don't, then you're >>>>>>>> either retarded or a liar. >> >>>>>>> Yes, I can understand what that phrase would usually mean, but on that >>>>>>> interpretation it would not be plausible that every human has the >>>>>>> potential to be a moral actor, as you claimed. >> >>>>>> /Ex ante/, knowing only that an entity is human, then it does have the >>>>>> potential to be a moral actor. You know this. >> >>>>> "Ex ante" means "before the event"; I don't think you're applying that >>>>> phrase correctly. >> >>>>> It's obviously not true that all humans have the potential for moral >>>>> agency. >> >>>> Use /a priori/ if it makes you feel any better, you nitpicking ****. >> >>>> /A priori/, knowing only that an entity you are going to consider is a >>>> living human, then it does have the potential to be a moral actor, and >>>> you know it. >> >>> No. >> >> Yes. >> > > It would have that potential in the great majority of cases, but not > in every case. In *all* cases, you expect the human to be, or to develop to be, a moral agent. You don't expect it because "in most cases" humans are moral agents; you think it because it is a defining trait of the category "human", and the subject in question is human. >>>> You *expect* the human to be, or to develop to become, a >>>> moral actor. >> >>> You probably would expect it in the absence of further information, >> >> What the **** do you think /a priori/ refers to, you stupid prick? >> > > It refers to something you know for certain. No, it doesn't. It refers to before having the further information. |
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On 4/20/2012 9:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 20, 6:24 pm, George > wrote: >> On 4/20/2012 8:55 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>> On Apr 20, 5:24 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/19/2012 11:11 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 20, 7:40 am, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:25 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 20, 1:53 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 1:47 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 4:47 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 4:20 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 9:41 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 12:09 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 8:47 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 10:48 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 5:15 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 6:06 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 1:31 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2012 1:34 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 9:25 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2012 11:10 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 4:01 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2012 11:47 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 8:53 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2012 11:13 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 4:46 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 11:17 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 6:37 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 8:44 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 5:37 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 8:19 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 4:58 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 6:32 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, it just degenerates into an exchange of contrary assertions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about who has the burden of proof >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have claimed not only that the burden of proof in terms of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justifying "speciesism" is on those who rely on it, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I have claimed that, and I have also claimed that most ethicists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree on this point, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're full of shit on that point. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, my friend who is doing a PhD in metaethics doesn't think so, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your "ara" radical pal is a lying partisan. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not talking about John Hadley. It's another guy, and he's not an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ARA. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He's still a radical lying partisan. You're trying to appeal to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> authority, when the credentials of the so-called authority are not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> established. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is someone who is doing a PhD in metaethics, and he is not an ARA. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's nice. I still don't see that he would be qualified to say that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "default position" of ethics is that equal consideration ought to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given to entities' interests irrespective of species. That's a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *normative* ethical prescription. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite, but in the course of doing a PhD in metaethics one becomes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite knowledgeable about normative ethics as well. The different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> areas of moral philosophy are linked. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It also is a highly controversial one, disputed by many people in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field of ethics and elsewhere. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you're right that it is highly controversial, and I never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested otherwise, but he confirmed my belief that the majority >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion of ethicists is that different amounts of consideration based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on species is something that needs to be justified, the burden of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof is on the speciesist. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is reasonable to suppose that he would be better-informed about the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter than you. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Meta-ethics is not normative ethics. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that. My remark still stands. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your remark is bullshit. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, it's the obvious truth. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep piling up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the burdens of proof that you then shirk. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you want me to try to prove? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of what? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of your claims. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you name a claim I've made that I haven't proved? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes: that equal consideration is due animals' interests. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay. So you believe all human interests are entitled to equal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration, yes? Or no? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No - and neither do you. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you believe about humans, then? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That we all establish hierarchies or circles. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you don't believe in any notion of human equality? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On every possible dimension? No, of course not - and neither do you. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know what you mean by "on every possible dimension". >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you do. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are a foolish person. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. You don't believe it, either. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you really think I don't believe it then that is rather amusing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't find anything amusing about it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, if you really believe that then that too is rather amusing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Same again. >> >>>>>>>>>>> So, where exactly does your confidence in these beliefs of yours come >>>>>>>>>>> from? >> >>>>>>>>>> That's kind of a pointless question. >> >>>>>>>>> Well, it was a question that was of interest to me. >> >>>>>>>> No, it wasn't. It was just time-wasting. >> >>>>>>> Well, you were the one who turned the conversation into a time-wasting >>>>>>> exercise, >> >>>>>> Nope. That's always you. >> >>>>> This belief of yours strikes me as without rational foundation. >> >>>> Funny - that's what I think about the entire "ar" proposition. >> >>> I know. >> >> So does almost everyone. >> > > No, only those Almost everyone. "ar" believers are a tiny minority, and most people have considered and rejected "ar" as a meaningful and useful guide to morality. >>>>>>>>>> Here's a better one, psycho: >>>>>>>>>> where does your impulse to waste time originate? >> >>>>>>>>> Why is that a better question? >> >>>>>>>> It's one that is of interest to me, and I care more about my interests >>>>>>>> than yours, which you tell me is ethical. >> >>>>>>> Well, ask yourself where does your impulse to waste time originate, >> >>>>>> I don't have that impulse; you do. >> >>>>> So you don't have the impulse to waste time; this conversation has >>>>> been a profitable use of time for you? >> >>>> Yes, of course - by presumption, as I am rational economic actor. >> >>> What has it done for you? >> >> What do you care? > > You've piqued my curiosity. Okay, then. |
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On 4/20/2012 9:53 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 20, 6:26 pm, George > wrote: >> On 4/20/2012 8:59 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Apr 20, 5:31 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/19/2012 11:15 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 20, 7:43 am, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 19, 11:52 pm, > wrote: >>>>>>>> > wrote in message >> >>>>>>>> ... >> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 13, 12:26 am, > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> > wrote >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 13, 12:00 am, > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> > 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? >> >>>>>>>>> You mean my justification for continuing to buy the products of plant- >>>>>>>>> based agriculture? >> >>>>>>>> I mean what I said. You said that giving special priority to your own >>>>>>>> interests required a justification, what is yours? >> >>>>>>> If you are referring to my buying products whose production harms >>>>>>> animals, my justification for that is that it gives me opportunities >>>>>>> to reduce other forms of suffering >> >>>>>> Bullshit. You buy the products whose production harms animals simply >>>>>> because you like them. At no time and in no way do you calculate that >>>>>> buy some amount of harm-causing product X will enable you to buy less >>>>>> harm-causing product Y. Cut the bullshit. >> >>>>> I was referring to the fact that buying the products of plant-based >>>>> agriculture is the only way that I can hold down my current job, which >>>>> gives me opportunities to donate money to charities which are >>>>> effective at reducing suffering in the Third World. Thus, overall I >>>>> reduce suffering to a greater extent than I otherwise would. >> >>>> Bullshit. You don't choose your work/leisure/consumption basket of >>>> goods and services with a goal to maximizing your contribution to >>>> suffering reduction. >> >>> Not to maximise it, no, but contributing to suffering reduction is one >>> of my goals, and my consumption of the products of plant-based >>> agriculture is rational with respect to this goal, for the reasons >>> explained. >> >>>> Cut the bullshit. >> >>>>>> You buy stuff because you like it. In terms of the products you *do* >>>>>> buy, you don't engage in any sort of calculation to see how it fits into >>>>>> an overall strategy of harm reduction. >> >>>>> But I do engage in research about what are the most effective >>>>> strategies for suffering reduction >> >>>> No, you don't. >> >>> Yes, I do. >> >> You don't. You've said you don't. You say "there's no data", and you >> throw up your hands and quit. You do not do any research into how >> further to reduce harm. No "vegan" does. Stop lying. >> > > I wasn't actually referring to efforts to reduce the suffering > associated with producing the food I eat. I was, and I made it clear that I was, so necessarily, so were you. Cut the bullshit. You give different moral consideration to the interests of humans and animals. You give greater and heftier consideration to the interests of humans. Without even thinking about it, you are naturally much more cautious not to harm the interests of humans than you are for animals. >>>> The basic fact is, you lead your life in such a way that you are giving >>>> unequal consideration to human and animal interests. If you learned >>>> that human interests were as casually harmed by the production of some >>>> product you consume as animal interests are harmed, in ways known to >>>> you, by products you do consume, you would stop consuming those products >>>> in the first group. >> >>> Not if the burden of doing so was comparable to the burden of my >>> boycotting commercial agriculture. >> >> You're still bullshitting. > > What grounds do you have for thinking so? I've shown that you give more consideration to the interests of humans than you do to those of animals, so when you say you give equal consideration, I know you're bullshitting. >> You're trying to play a lawyerly game, and >> it fails from the start. >> > > Why? > >>>> You make more effort to know and pay more attention >>>> to how the welfare of humans is affected by the products you consume or >>>> might consume than you do with respect to animals. >> >>> No. >> >> Yes. Proved. >> > > You've offered no evidence for the contention whatsoever. Of course I have, and you've seen it. Yes, yes, I know: "where? when?" Go back and look. >>>> For example, you are >>>> aware of allegations of terrible working conditions for Chinese workers >>>> in factories and facilities that make Apple Computer products. You are >>>> aware of them, and you expect the allegations to be investigated and, if >>>> found to be true, remediated. You *do not care* about agricultural >>>> practices that harm animals in the course of producing the foods you >>>> eat. You just close your eyes to it, say it's not really of any concern >>>> to you. >> >>> You have no rational grounds for saying I don't care about it. >> >> I do. > > What are they? You've told us. Go back and look. >> You prove it for us every time. >> >> You're massively a hypocrite. > > So you keep saying, but I've proved it. |
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On Apr 20, 7:29*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/20/2012 9:47 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 6:17 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 4/20/2012 8:54 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Apr 20, 5:22 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 4/19/2012 11:09 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Apr 20, 7:39 am, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:20 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Apr 20, 1:52 am, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 1:46 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 4:46 pm, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 4:19 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 9:41 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 12:09 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 8:39 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 10:45 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 5:13 pm, George > * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 6:06 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 7:38 am, > * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > * * * * * * * * *wrote in message > > ... > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 9:25 am, > * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > * * * * * * * * *wrote > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you're right that it is highly controversial, and I never > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested otherwise, but he confirmed my belief that the majority > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion of ethicists is that different amounts of consideration based > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on species is something that needs to be justified, the burden of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof is on the speciesist. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The consideration differences that exist in so-called "speciesism" are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually based on species. One thought experiment to illustrate would be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imagine that a friendly extraterrestrial race of beings arrived on earth > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that had superior intellectual capacities to humans. That species would > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> automatically be given full consideration equal to humans, and it would > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be based on species, it would be based on the totality of the entire > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constellation of capacities inherent *in* the species. The reason that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "isms" like racism and sexism are wrong is that they are based on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misconceptions about the capacities of the groups they discriminate > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The discrimination we have against sea sponges is not based on a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misconception. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's your proof, and explanation. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But when confronted with two cases, one involving a member of your own > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> species who lacks the usual capacities for your species > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're talking about abilities, not capacities. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are - you're just too thick to realize it. *That's what I was trying > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to explain to you with the discussion of actuality and potentiality, but > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your plankiness prevented you from grasping it. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was no discussion. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was. *You didn't contribute anything to it, though.. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you to explain what you meant by "potential" and you > >>>>>>>>>>>>> explicitly refused to tell me. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> That's a lie. > > >>>>>>>>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/talk....g/7083c141346b... > > >>>>>>>>>> No; this: > > >>>>>>>>>> * * * * * *You, cluelessly: > >>>>>>>>>> * * * * * *What do you mean by "potentiality"? > > >>>>>>>>>> * * * * * *Me, helpfully: > >>>>>>>>>> * * * * * *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. > > >>>>>>>>>> I explained it, cocksucker, in plain English. *The fact you cynically > >>>>>>>>>> pretended not to understand it is not my problem. > > >>>>>>>>>> You're a very bad liar, Woopert - a liar, to be sure, but a very bad one. > > >>>>>>>>> No, actually, in that passage from yourself which you quoted you do > >>>>>>>>> not explain what you mean by "potentiality". > > >>>>>>>> I believe English is your native tongue, and by talking about having "the > >>>>>>>> potential to be or to become a moral actor", I describe it in terms you > >>>>>>>> ought to be able to understand. *If you say you don't, then you're > >>>>>>>> either retarded or a liar. > > >>>>>>> Yes, I can understand what that phrase would usually mean, but on that > >>>>>>> interpretation it would not be plausible that every human has the > >>>>>>> potential to be a moral actor, as you claimed. > > >>>>>> /Ex ante/, knowing only that an entity is human, then it does have the > >>>>>> potential to be a moral actor. *You know this. > > >>>>> "Ex ante" means "before the event"; I don't think you're applying that > >>>>> phrase correctly. > > >>>>> It's obviously not true that all humans have the potential for moral > >>>>> agency. > > >>>> Use /a priori/ if it makes you feel any better, you nitpicking ****. > > >>>> /A priori/, knowing only that an entity you are going to consider is a > >>>> living human, then it does have the potential to be a moral actor, and > >>>> you know it. > > >>> No. > > >> Yes. > > > It would have that potential in the great majority of cases, but not > > in every case. > > >>>> You *expect* the human to be, or to develop to become, a > >>>> moral actor. > > >>> You probably would expect it in the absence of further information, > > >> What the **** do you think /a priori/ refers to, you stupid prick? > > > It refers to something you know for certain. > > >>>> If it doesn't, something is wrong; the human has a defect. > >>>> * * Being human doesn't mean simply a pure Cambridge relation with other > >>>> humans. *It means something about the faculties a human ought to have. > > >>> There are biological criteria for whether you are a member of the > >>> species Homo sapiens, those are the criteria. There are other > >>> properties that are typically associated with being human, but not > >>> universally so. > > >> You didn't refute what I said. *A human is *supposed* to be a moral > >> agent. *It's what we *expect* to happen. *When it doesn't, something is > >> wrong. *A human also is expected to have two legs and two arms, and when > >> it doesn't, something is wrong. *There is meaning to the statement > >> "humans are moral agents", and that meaning is in no way merely statistical. > > > Yes, all right. > > Yet you're treating it as merely statistical. *Therefore, you're getting > the wrong meaning. What I'm doing is saying that individuals should be judged on those abilities which they in fact possess. |
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On Apr 20, 7:32*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/20/2012 9:47 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 6:17 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 4/20/2012 8:54 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Apr 20, 5:22 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 4/19/2012 11:09 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Apr 20, 7:39 am, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:20 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Apr 20, 1:52 am, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 1:46 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 4:46 pm, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 4:19 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 9:41 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 12:09 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 8:39 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 10:45 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 5:13 pm, George > * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 6:06 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 7:38 am, > * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > * * * * * * * * *wrote in message > > ... > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 9:25 am, > * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > * * * * * * * * *wrote > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you're right that it is highly controversial, and I never > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested otherwise, but he confirmed my belief that the majority > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion of ethicists is that different amounts of consideration based > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on species is something that needs to be justified, the burden of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof is on the speciesist. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The consideration differences that exist in so-called "speciesism" are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually based on species. One thought experiment to illustrate would be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imagine that a friendly extraterrestrial race of beings arrived on earth > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that had superior intellectual capacities to humans. That species would > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> automatically be given full consideration equal to humans, and it would > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be based on species, it would be based on the totality of the entire > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constellation of capacities inherent *in* the species. The reason that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "isms" like racism and sexism are wrong is that they are based on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misconceptions about the capacities of the groups they discriminate > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The discrimination we have against sea sponges is not based on a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misconception. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's your proof, and explanation. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But when confronted with two cases, one involving a member of your own > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> species who lacks the usual capacities for your species > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're talking about abilities, not capacities. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are - you're just too thick to realize it. *That's what I was trying > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to explain to you with the discussion of actuality and potentiality, but > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your plankiness prevented you from grasping it. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was no discussion. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was. *You didn't contribute anything to it, though.. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you to explain what you meant by "potential" and you > >>>>>>>>>>>>> explicitly refused to tell me. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> That's a lie. > > >>>>>>>>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/talk....g/7083c141346b... > > >>>>>>>>>> No; this: > > >>>>>>>>>> * * * * * *You, cluelessly: > >>>>>>>>>> * * * * * *What do you mean by "potentiality"? > > >>>>>>>>>> * * * * * *Me, helpfully: > >>>>>>>>>> * * * * * *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. > > >>>>>>>>>> I explained it, cocksucker, in plain English. *The fact you cynically > >>>>>>>>>> pretended not to understand it is not my problem. > > >>>>>>>>>> You're a very bad liar, Woopert - a liar, to be sure, but a very bad one. > > >>>>>>>>> No, actually, in that passage from yourself which you quoted you do > >>>>>>>>> not explain what you mean by "potentiality". > > >>>>>>>> I believe English is your native tongue, and by talking about having "the > >>>>>>>> potential to be or to become a moral actor", I describe it in terms you > >>>>>>>> ought to be able to understand. *If you say you don't, then you're > >>>>>>>> either retarded or a liar. > > >>>>>>> Yes, I can understand what that phrase would usually mean, but on that > >>>>>>> interpretation it would not be plausible that every human has the > >>>>>>> potential to be a moral actor, as you claimed. > > >>>>>> /Ex ante/, knowing only that an entity is human, then it does have the > >>>>>> potential to be a moral actor. *You know this. > > >>>>> "Ex ante" means "before the event"; I don't think you're applying that > >>>>> phrase correctly. > > >>>>> It's obviously not true that all humans have the potential for moral > >>>>> agency. > > >>>> Use /a priori/ if it makes you feel any better, you nitpicking ****. > > >>>> /A priori/, knowing only that an entity you are going to consider is a > >>>> living human, then it does have the potential to be a moral actor, and > >>>> you know it. > > >>> No. > > >> Yes. > > > It would have that potential in the great majority of cases, but not > > in every case. > > In *all* cases, you expect the human to be, or to develop to be, a moral > agent. Wrong. In some cases you would not expect this. An anencephalic child is one example. > You don't expect it because "in most cases" humans are moral > agents; you think it because it is a defining trait of the category > "human", and the subject in question is human. > That's an obvious fallacy. > >>>> You *expect* the human to be, or to develop to become, a > >>>> moral actor. > > >>> You probably would expect it in the absence of further information, > > >> What the **** do you think /a priori/ refers to, you stupid prick? > > > It refers to something you know for certain. > > No, it doesn't. *It refers to before having the further information. |
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On Apr 20, 7:23*pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 8:42 am, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> "Rupert" > wrote in message > > .... > > >> > On Apr 20, 12:07 am, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message > > >> ... > > >> >> > On Apr 19, 10:13 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote > > >> >> >> > On Apr 18, 11:57 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >> >> >> Sure there is. What are the cognitive capacities of say, a > >> >> >> >> chicken, > >> >> >> >> or > >> >> >> >> a > >> >> >> >> housefly? That is a broad question that recognizes that some > >> >> >> >> chickens > >> >> >> >> or > >> >> >> >> houseflies may have been born retarded, have been hit by a blunt > >> >> >> >> object, > >> >> >> >> or > >> >> >> >> on the other hand may be especially clever. The question can > >> >> >> >> still > >> >> >> >> answered > >> >> >> >> though. It is different than asking, "what are the cognitive > >> >> >> >> capacities > >> >> >> >> of > >> >> >> >> *that specific* chicken or housefly?", in which case there are > >> >> >> >> assumptions > >> >> >> >> involved. In either case you can be pretty damn confident of the > >> >> >> >> upper > >> >> >> >> limits, which is the main thing. Any being through some form of > >> >> >> >> impairment > >> >> >> >> may lose some or all of it's abilities, that is not what > >> >> >> >> inherent > >> >> >> >> capacity > >> >> >> >> is about. > > >> >> >> > As I say, I don't believe you are using any meaningful notion of > >> >> >> > "inherent capacity" here. > > >> >> >> Would you not concede that bats are born with the inherent capacity > >> >> >> of > >> >> >> navigation using sonar? > > >> >> > That sounds pretty reasonable to me, yes. > > >> >> That's what I mean by inherent capacity. When we think of bats one of > >> >> the > >> >> first things we think of is their sonar. Some bats undoubtedly for > >> >> some > >> >> reason don't have it, or it never develops properly, but it is in the > >> >> DNA > >> >> of > >> >> bats. > > >> > It is in the DNA of bats in general, yes, if you were looking at an > >> > individual bat who lacked the ability then whether or not the capacity > >> > was still "in the DNA" would be a scientific research programme. > > >> >> But it's not the whole story of bats, they are also a *mammal that can > >> >> fly*, that's another amazing inherent quality of the bat. They eat a > >> >> lot > >> >> of > >> >> bugs too. So when we refer to "bats" we mean everything we know about > >> >> "bats". We know a lot of other stuff about bats, That's what "species" > >> >> relates, the accumulation of all the inherent capacities of a species > >> >> . > >> >> We > >> >> relate to bats based on that, we do it for for worms and sponges and > >> >> fruit > >> >> flies, gorillas and humans. We don't give them equal consideration, we > >> >> give > >> >> them consideration based on their "kind" and all that implies. > > >> > Another option is to give each individual bat consideration based on > >> > the abilities they actually possess. > > >> Give them all IQ tests? > > > I don't see any good reason why that would be necessary. > > >> The upper limit of their abilities is known and > >> that's the only one that matters. Species are afforded consideration > >> based > >> on the upper limit of abilities of the most advanced known member of > >> their > >> species. > > > Well, what sort of moral consideration do you believe that gorillas > > are entitled to, for example? > > A lot. Okay, what about pigs? |
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On Apr 20, 7:33*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/20/2012 9:48 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > On Apr 20, 6:24 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 4/20/2012 8:55 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Apr 20, 5:24 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 4/19/2012 11:11 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Apr 20, 7:40 am, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:25 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Apr 20, 1:53 am, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 1:47 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 4:47 pm, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 4:20 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 9:41 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 12:09 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 8:47 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 10:48 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 5:15 pm, George > * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 6:06 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 1:31 am, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2012 1:34 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 9:25 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2012 11:10 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 4:01 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2012 11:47 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 8:53 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2012 11:13 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 4:46 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 11:17 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 6:37 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 8:44 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 5:37 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 8:19 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 4:58 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 6:32 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, it just degenerates into an exchange of contrary assertions > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about who has the burden of proof > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have claimed not only that the burden of proof in terms of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justifying "speciesism" is on those who rely on it, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I have claimed that, and I have also claimed that most ethicists > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree on this point, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're full of shit on that point. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, my friend who is doing a PhD in metaethics doesn't think so, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your "ara" radical pal is a lying partisan. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not talking about John Hadley. It's another guy, and he's not an > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ARA. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He's still a radical lying partisan. *You're trying to appeal to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> authority, when the credentials of the so-called authority are not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> established. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is someone who is doing a PhD in metaethics, and he is not an ARA. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's nice. *I still don't see that he would be qualified to say that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "default position" of ethics is that equal consideration ought to be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given to entities' interests irrespective of species. *That's a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *normative* ethical prescription. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite, but in the course of doing a PhD in metaethics one becomes > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite knowledgeable about normative ethics as well. The different > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> areas of moral philosophy are linked. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It also is a highly controversial one, disputed by many people in the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field of ethics and elsewhere. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you're right that it is highly controversial, and I never > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested otherwise, but he confirmed my belief that the majority > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion of ethicists is that different amounts of consideration based > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on species is something that needs to be justified, the burden of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof is on the speciesist. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is reasonable to suppose that he would be better-informed about the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter than you. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Meta-ethics is not normative ethics. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that. My remark still stands. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your remark is bullshit. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, it's the obvious truth. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep piling up > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the burdens of proof that you then shirk.. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you want me to try to prove? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of it. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of what? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of your claims. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you name a claim I've made that I haven't proved? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes: *that equal consideration is due animals' interests. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay. So you believe all human interests are entitled to equal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration, yes? Or no? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No - and neither do you. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you believe about humans, then? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That we all establish hierarchies or circles. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you don't believe in any notion of human equality? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On every possible dimension? *No, of course not - and neither do you. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know what you mean by "on every possible dimension". > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you do. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are a foolish person. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. *You don't believe it, either. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you really think I don't believe it then that is rather amusing. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't find anything amusing about it. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, if you really believe that then that too is rather amusing. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Same again. > > >>>>>>>>>>> So, where exactly does your confidence in these beliefs of yours come > >>>>>>>>>>> from? > > >>>>>>>>>> That's kind of a pointless question. > > >>>>>>>>> Well, it was a question that was of interest to me. > > >>>>>>>> No, it wasn't. *It was just time-wasting. > > >>>>>>> Well, you were the one who turned the conversation into a time-wasting > >>>>>>> exercise, > > >>>>>> Nope. *That's always you. > > >>>>> This belief of yours strikes me as without rational foundation. > > >>>> Funny - that's what I think about the entire "ar" proposition. > > >>> I know. > > >> So does almost everyone. > > > No, only those > > Almost everyone. *"ar" believers are a tiny minority, and most people > have considered and rejected "ar" as a meaningful and useful guide to > morality. > Sorry, I misunderstood your statement. I don't believe that most people have considered it, no. > >>>>>>>>>> Here's a better one, psycho: > >>>>>>>>>> where does your impulse to waste time originate? > > >>>>>>>>> Why is that a better question? > > >>>>>>>> It's one that is of interest to me, and I care more about my interests > >>>>>>>> than yours, which you tell me is ethical. > > >>>>>>> Well, ask yourself where does your impulse to waste time originate, > > >>>>>> I don't have that impulse; you do. > > >>>>> So you don't have the impulse to waste time; this conversation has > >>>>> been a profitable use of time for you? > > >>>> Yes, of course - by presumption, as I am rational economic actor. > > >>> What has it done for you? > > >> What do you care? > > > You've piqued my curiosity. > > Okay, then. |
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
"Dutch" > wrote in message
... > "Rupert" > wrote >> This is a critique of the argument from species normality: >> >> http://www.aynrandstudies.com/jars/a...ahamnnobis.pdf > > I haven't opened it yet but my guess is that it repeats the marginal cases > fallacy. Yep. |
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On Apr 20, 7:36*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/20/2012 9:53 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 6:26 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 4/20/2012 8:59 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Apr 20, 5:31 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 4/19/2012 11:15 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Apr 20, 7:43 am, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Apr 19, 11:52 pm, > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> > * * * *wrote in message > > ... > > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 13, 12:26 am, > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > * * * *wrote > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 13, 12:00 am, > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > * * * *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? > > >>>>>>>>> You mean my justification for continuing to buy the products of plant- > >>>>>>>>> based agriculture? > > >>>>>>>> I mean what I said. You said that giving special priority to your own > >>>>>>>> interests required a justification, what is yours? > > >>>>>>> If you are referring to my buying products whose production harms > >>>>>>> animals, my justification for that is that it gives me opportunities > >>>>>>> to reduce other forms of suffering > > >>>>>> Bullshit. *You buy the products whose production harms animals simply > >>>>>> because you like them. *At no time and in no way do you calculate that > >>>>>> buy some amount of harm-causing product X will enable you to buy less > >>>>>> harm-causing product Y. *Cut the bullshit. > > >>>>> I was referring to the fact that buying the products of plant-based > >>>>> agriculture is the only way that I can hold down my current job, which > >>>>> gives me opportunities to donate money to charities which are > >>>>> effective at reducing suffering in the Third World. Thus, overall I > >>>>> reduce suffering to a greater extent than I otherwise would. > > >>>> Bullshit. *You don't choose your work/leisure/consumption basket of > >>>> goods and services with a goal to maximizing your contribution to > >>>> suffering reduction. > > >>> Not to maximise it, no, but contributing to suffering reduction is one > >>> of my goals, and my consumption of the products of plant-based > >>> agriculture is rational with respect to this goal, for the reasons > >>> explained. > > >>>> Cut the bullshit. > > >>>>>> You buy stuff because you like it. *In terms of the products you *do* > >>>>>> buy, you don't engage in any sort of calculation to see how it fits into > >>>>>> an overall strategy of harm reduction. > > >>>>> But I do engage in research about what are the most effective > >>>>> strategies for suffering reduction > > >>>> No, you don't. > > >>> Yes, I do. > > >> You don't. *You've said you don't. *You say "there's no data", and you > >> throw up your hands and quit. *You do not do any research into how > >> further to reduce harm. *No "vegan" does. *Stop lying. > > > I wasn't actually referring to efforts to reduce the suffering > > associated with producing the food I eat. > > I was, and I made it clear that I was, so necessarily, so were you. > No, you didn't make it clear that that's what you were talking about; all you said was "No, you don't" in response to my comment, which as I have now made clear was about something else. To repeat: I was not referring to efforts to reduce the suffering associated with producing the food that I eat. Your denials of this are without merit. > Cut the bullshit. *You give different moral consideration to the > interests of humans and animals. *You give greater and heftier > consideration to the interests of humans. *Without even thinking about > it, you are naturally much more cautious not to harm the interests of > humans than you are for animals. > You've given no argument for these assertions. > >>>> The basic fact is, you lead your life in such a way that you are giving > >>>> unequal consideration to human and animal interests. *If you learned > >>>> that human interests were as casually harmed by the production of some > >>>> product you consume as animal interests are harmed, in ways known to > >>>> you, by products you do consume, you would stop consuming those products > >>>> in the first group. > > >>> Not if the burden of doing so was comparable to the burden of my > >>> boycotting commercial agriculture. > > >> You're still bullshitting. > > > What grounds do you have for thinking so? > > I've shown that you give more consideration to the interests of humans > than you do to those of animals, so when you say you give equal > consideration, I know you're bullshitting. > Showing something involves giving an argument, not just repeating an assertion over and over again. > > > > > > > > > >> You're trying to play a lawyerly game, and > >> it fails from the start. > > > Why? > > >>>> You make more effort to know and pay more attention > >>>> to how the welfare of humans is affected by the products you consume or > >>>> might consume than you do with respect to animals. > > >>> No. > > >> Yes. *Proved. > > > You've offered no evidence for the contention whatsoever. > > Of course I have, Actually, my remark was correct. > and you've seen it. *Yes, yes, I know: *"where? > when?" *Go back and look. > > >>>> For example, you are > >>>> aware of allegations of terrible working conditions for Chinese workers > >>>> in factories and facilities that make Apple Computer products. *You are > >>>> aware of them, and you expect the allegations to be investigated and, if > >>>> found to be true, remediated. *You *do not care* about agricultural > >>>> practices that harm animals in the course of producing the foods you > >>>> eat. *You just close your eyes to it, say it's not really of any concern > >>>> to you. > > >>> You have no rational grounds for saying I don't care about it. > > >> I do. > > > What are they? > > You've told us. *Go back and look. > Wrong. > >> You prove it for us every time. > > >> You're massively a hypocrite. > > > So you keep saying, but > > I've proved it. Wrong. |
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On 4/20/2012 10:42 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 20, 7:29 pm, George > wrote: >> On 4/20/2012 9:47 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Apr 20, 6:17 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/20/2012 8:54 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 20, 5:22 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 4/19/2012 11:09 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 20, 7:39 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:20 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 1:52 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 1:46 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 4:46 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 4:19 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 9:41 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 12:09 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 8:39 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 10:45 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 5:13 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 6:06 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 7:38 am, > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote in message >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 9:25 am, > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you're right that it is highly controversial, and I never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested otherwise, but he confirmed my belief that the majority >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion of ethicists is that different amounts of consideration based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on species is something that needs to be justified, the burden of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof is on the speciesist. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The consideration differences that exist in so-called "speciesism" are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually based on species. One thought experiment to illustrate would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imagine that a friendly extraterrestrial race of beings arrived on earth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that had superior intellectual capacities to humans. That species would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> automatically be given full consideration equal to humans, and it would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be based on species, it would be based on the totality of the entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constellation of capacities inherent *in* the species. The reason that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "isms" like racism and sexism are wrong is that they are based on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misconceptions about the capacities of the groups they discriminate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The discrimination we have against sea sponges is not based on a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misconception. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's your proof, and explanation. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But when confronted with two cases, one involving a member of your own >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> species who lacks the usual capacities for your species >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're talking about abilities, not capacities. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are - you're just too thick to realize it. That's what I was trying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to explain to you with the discussion of actuality and potentiality, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your plankiness prevented you from grasping it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was no discussion. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was. You didn't contribute anything to it, though. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you to explain what you meant by "potential" and you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explicitly refused to tell me. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a lie. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk....g/7083c141346b... >> >>>>>>>>>>>> No; this: >> >>>>>>>>>>>> You, cluelessly: >>>>>>>>>>>> What do you mean by "potentiality"? >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Me, helpfully: >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I explained it, cocksucker, in plain English. The fact you cynically >>>>>>>>>>>> pretended not to understand it is not my problem. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> You're a very bad liar, Woopert - a liar, to be sure, but a very bad one. >> >>>>>>>>>>> No, actually, in that passage from yourself which you quoted you do >>>>>>>>>>> not explain what you mean by "potentiality". >> >>>>>>>>>> I believe English is your native tongue, and by talking about having "the >>>>>>>>>> potential to be or to become a moral actor", I describe it in terms you >>>>>>>>>> ought to be able to understand. If you say you don't, then you're >>>>>>>>>> either retarded or a liar. >> >>>>>>>>> Yes, I can understand what that phrase would usually mean, but on that >>>>>>>>> interpretation it would not be plausible that every human has the >>>>>>>>> potential to be a moral actor, as you claimed. >> >>>>>>>> /Ex ante/, knowing only that an entity is human, then it does have the >>>>>>>> potential to be a moral actor. You know this. >> >>>>>>> "Ex ante" means "before the event"; I don't think you're applying that >>>>>>> phrase correctly. >> >>>>>>> It's obviously not true that all humans have the potential for moral >>>>>>> agency. >> >>>>>> Use /a priori/ if it makes you feel any better, you nitpicking ****. >> >>>>>> /A priori/, knowing only that an entity you are going to consider is a >>>>>> living human, then it does have the potential to be a moral actor, and >>>>>> you know it. >> >>>>> No. >> >>>> Yes. >> >>> It would have that potential in the great majority of cases, but not >>> in every case. >> >>>>>> You *expect* the human to be, or to develop to become, a >>>>>> moral actor. >> >>>>> You probably would expect it in the absence of further information, >> >>>> What the **** do you think /a priori/ refers to, you stupid prick? >> >>> It refers to something you know for certain. >> >>>>>> If it doesn't, something is wrong; the human has a defect. >>>>>> Being human doesn't mean simply a pure Cambridge relation with other >>>>>> humans. It means something about the faculties a human ought to have. >> >>>>> There are biological criteria for whether you are a member of the >>>>> species Homo sapiens, those are the criteria. There are other >>>>> properties that are typically associated with being human, but not >>>>> universally so. >> >>>> You didn't refute what I said. A human is *supposed* to be a moral >>>> agent. It's what we *expect* to happen. When it doesn't, something is >>>> wrong. A human also is expected to have two legs and two arms, and when >>>> it doesn't, something is wrong. There is meaning to the statement >>>> "humans are moral agents", and that meaning is in no way merely statistical. >> >>> Yes, all right. >> >> Yet you're treating it as merely statistical. Therefore, you're getting >> the wrong meaning. > > What I'm doing is saying that individuals should be judged on those > abilities which they in fact possess. And that's wrong, not least because you don't practice it, but also you would therefore deny moral consideration to marginal humans, just as the critics of amc say it would. |
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On 4/20/2012 10:43 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 20, 7:32 pm, George > wrote: >> On 4/20/2012 9:47 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Apr 20, 6:17 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/20/2012 8:54 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 20, 5:22 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 4/19/2012 11:09 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 20, 7:39 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:20 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 1:52 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 1:46 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 4:46 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 4:19 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 9:41 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 12:09 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 8:39 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 10:45 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 5:13 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 6:06 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 7:38 am, > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote in message >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 9:25 am, > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you're right that it is highly controversial, and I never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested otherwise, but he confirmed my belief that the majority >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion of ethicists is that different amounts of consideration based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on species is something that needs to be justified, the burden of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof is on the speciesist. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The consideration differences that exist in so-called "speciesism" are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually based on species. One thought experiment to illustrate would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imagine that a friendly extraterrestrial race of beings arrived on earth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that had superior intellectual capacities to humans. That species would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> automatically be given full consideration equal to humans, and it would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be based on species, it would be based on the totality of the entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constellation of capacities inherent *in* the species. The reason that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "isms" like racism and sexism are wrong is that they are based on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misconceptions about the capacities of the groups they discriminate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The discrimination we have against sea sponges is not based on a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misconception. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's your proof, and explanation. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But when confronted with two cases, one involving a member of your own >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> species who lacks the usual capacities for your species >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're talking about abilities, not capacities. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are - you're just too thick to realize it. That's what I was trying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to explain to you with the discussion of actuality and potentiality, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your plankiness prevented you from grasping it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was no discussion. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was. You didn't contribute anything to it, though. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you to explain what you meant by "potential" and you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explicitly refused to tell me. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a lie. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk....g/7083c141346b... >> >>>>>>>>>>>> No; this: >> >>>>>>>>>>>> You, cluelessly: >>>>>>>>>>>> What do you mean by "potentiality"? >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Me, helpfully: >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I explained it, cocksucker, in plain English. The fact you cynically >>>>>>>>>>>> pretended not to understand it is not my problem. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> You're a very bad liar, Woopert - a liar, to be sure, but a very bad one. >> >>>>>>>>>>> No, actually, in that passage from yourself which you quoted you do >>>>>>>>>>> not explain what you mean by "potentiality". >> >>>>>>>>>> I believe English is your native tongue, and by talking about having "the >>>>>>>>>> potential to be or to become a moral actor", I describe it in terms you >>>>>>>>>> ought to be able to understand. If you say you don't, then you're >>>>>>>>>> either retarded or a liar. >> >>>>>>>>> Yes, I can understand what that phrase would usually mean, but on that >>>>>>>>> interpretation it would not be plausible that every human has the >>>>>>>>> potential to be a moral actor, as you claimed. >> >>>>>>>> /Ex ante/, knowing only that an entity is human, then it does have the >>>>>>>> potential to be a moral actor. You know this. >> >>>>>>> "Ex ante" means "before the event"; I don't think you're applying that >>>>>>> phrase correctly. >> >>>>>>> It's obviously not true that all humans have the potential for moral >>>>>>> agency. >> >>>>>> Use /a priori/ if it makes you feel any better, you nitpicking ****. >> >>>>>> /A priori/, knowing only that an entity you are going to consider is a >>>>>> living human, then it does have the potential to be a moral actor, and >>>>>> you know it. >> >>>>> No. >> >>>> Yes. >> >>> It would have that potential in the great majority of cases, but not >>> in every case. >> >> In *all* cases, you expect the human to be, or to develop to be, a moral >> agent. > > Wrong. In some cases you would not expect this. An anencephalic child > is one example. You stupid plodding ****: until you *know* the child is anencephalic, you expect a human child to become a moral agent. You do *not* say, "There is 'only' a 99.99% chance that that pregnant woman is going to give birth to a baby with a normal brain, therefore I'm not going to be 100% cautious in not causing her an injury that might result in the loss of her child." When you hear that a woman is pregnant, you don't start thinking of giving or withholding moral consideration to the baby she is likely to bear based on your statistical estimate of whether or not it will be born anencephalic, you stupid ****. You *EXPECT* it will be born with a brain and will develop into a moral agent. I'm getting tired of your blatant sophistry and raging intellectual dishonesty. >> You don't expect it because "in most cases" humans are moral >> agents; you think it because it is a defining trait of the category >> "human", and the subject in question is human. >> > > That's an obvious fallacy. No, it is not, and you know it. It is a fact. You think "human = moral agent"; you not think "human = 99.978% chance of being moral agent". Stop bullshitting. We're tired of it. >>>>>> You *expect* the human to be, or to develop to become, a >>>>>> moral actor. >> >>>>> You probably would expect it in the absence of further information, >> >>>> What the **** do you think /a priori/ refers to, you stupid prick? >> >>> It refers to something you know for certain. >> >> No, it doesn't. It refers to before having the further information. Asshole. You were just time-wasting again. |
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On 4/20/2012 10:44 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 20, 7:23 pm, > wrote: >> > wrote in message >> >> ... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Apr 20, 8:42 am, > wrote: >>>> > wrote in message >> >>>> ... >> >>>>> On Apr 20, 12:07 am, > wrote: >>>>>> > wrote in message >> >>>>>> ... >> >>>>>>> On Apr 19, 10:13 pm, > wrote: >>>>>>>> > wrote >> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 11:57 pm, > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Sure there is. What are the cognitive capacities of say, a >>>>>>>>>> chicken, >>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> housefly? That is a broad question that recognizes that some >>>>>>>>>> chickens >>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>> houseflies may have been born retarded, have been hit by a blunt >>>>>>>>>> object, >>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>> on the other hand may be especially clever. The question can >>>>>>>>>> still >>>>>>>>>> answered >>>>>>>>>> though. It is different than asking, "what are the cognitive >>>>>>>>>> capacities >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> *that specific* chicken or housefly?", in which case there are >>>>>>>>>> assumptions >>>>>>>>>> involved. In either case you can be pretty damn confident of the >>>>>>>>>> upper >>>>>>>>>> limits, which is the main thing. Any being through some form of >>>>>>>>>> impairment >>>>>>>>>> may lose some or all of it's abilities, that is not what >>>>>>>>>> inherent >>>>>>>>>> capacity >>>>>>>>>> is about. >> >>>>>>>>> As I say, I don't believe you are using any meaningful notion of >>>>>>>>> "inherent capacity" here. >> >>>>>>>> Would you not concede that bats are born with the inherent capacity >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> navigation using sonar? >> >>>>>>> That sounds pretty reasonable to me, yes. >> >>>>>> That's what I mean by inherent capacity. When we think of bats one of >>>>>> the >>>>>> first things we think of is their sonar. Some bats undoubtedly for >>>>>> some >>>>>> reason don't have it, or it never develops properly, but it is in the >>>>>> DNA >>>>>> of >>>>>> bats. >> >>>>> It is in the DNA of bats in general, yes, if you were looking at an >>>>> individual bat who lacked the ability then whether or not the capacity >>>>> was still "in the DNA" would be a scientific research programme. >> >>>>>> But it's not the whole story of bats, they are also a *mammal that can >>>>>> fly*, that's another amazing inherent quality of the bat. They eat a >>>>>> lot >>>>>> of >>>>>> bugs too. So when we refer to "bats" we mean everything we know about >>>>>> "bats". We know a lot of other stuff about bats, That's what "species" >>>>>> relates, the accumulation of all the inherent capacities of a species >>>>>> . >>>>>> We >>>>>> relate to bats based on that, we do it for for worms and sponges and >>>>>> fruit >>>>>> flies, gorillas and humans. We don't give them equal consideration, we >>>>>> give >>>>>> them consideration based on their "kind" and all that implies. >> >>>>> Another option is to give each individual bat consideration based on >>>>> the abilities they actually possess. >> >>>> Give them all IQ tests? >> >>> I don't see any good reason why that would be necessary. >> >>>> The upper limit of their abilities is known and >>>> that's the only one that matters. Species are afforded consideration >>>> based >>>> on the upper limit of abilities of the most advanced known member of >>>> their >>>> species. >> >>> Well, what sort of moral consideration do you believe that gorillas >>> are entitled to, for example? >> >> A lot. > > Okay, what about pigs? Less. |
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On 4/20/2012 10:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 20, 7:33 pm, George > wrote: >> On 4/20/2012 9:48 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>> On Apr 20, 6:24 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/20/2012 8:55 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 20, 5:24 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 4/19/2012 11:11 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 20, 7:40 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:25 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 1:53 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 1:47 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 4:47 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 4:20 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 9:41 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 12:09 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 8:47 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 10:48 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 5:15 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2012 6:06 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 1:31 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2012 1:34 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 9:25 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2012 11:10 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 4:01 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2012 11:47 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 8:53 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2012 11:13 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 4:46 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 11:17 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 6:37 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 8:44 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 5:37 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 8:19 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 4:58 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 6:32 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, it just degenerates into an exchange of contrary assertions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about who has the burden of proof >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have claimed not only that the burden of proof in terms of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justifying "speciesism" is on those who rely on it, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I have claimed that, and I have also claimed that most ethicists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree on this point, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're full of shit on that point. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, my friend who is doing a PhD in metaethics doesn't think so, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your "ara" radical pal is a lying partisan. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not talking about John Hadley. It's another guy, and he's not an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ARA. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He's still a radical lying partisan. You're trying to appeal to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> authority, when the credentials of the so-called authority are not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> established. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is someone who is doing a PhD in metaethics, and he is not an ARA. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's nice. I still don't see that he would be qualified to say that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "default position" of ethics is that equal consideration ought to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given to entities' interests irrespective of species. That's a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *normative* ethical prescription. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite, but in the course of doing a PhD in metaethics one becomes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite knowledgeable about normative ethics as well. The different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> areas of moral philosophy are linked. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It also is a highly controversial one, disputed by many people in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field of ethics and elsewhere. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you're right that it is highly controversial, and I never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested otherwise, but he confirmed my belief that the majority >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion of ethicists is that different amounts of consideration based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on species is something that needs to be justified, the burden of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof is on the speciesist. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is reasonable to suppose that he would be better-informed about the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter than you. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Meta-ethics is not normative ethics. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that. My remark still stands. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your remark is bullshit. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, it's the obvious truth. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep piling up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the burdens of proof that you then shirk. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you want me to try to prove? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of what? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of your claims. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you name a claim I've made that I haven't proved? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes: that equal consideration is due animals' interests. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay. So you believe all human interests are entitled to equal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration, yes? Or no? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No - and neither do you. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you believe about humans, then? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That we all establish hierarchies or circles. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you don't believe in any notion of human equality? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On every possible dimension? No, of course not - and neither do you. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know what you mean by "on every possible dimension". >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you do. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are a foolish person. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. You don't believe it, either. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you really think I don't believe it then that is rather amusing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't find anything amusing about it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, if you really believe that then that too is rather amusing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same again. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So, where exactly does your confidence in these beliefs of yours come >>>>>>>>>>>>> from? >> >>>>>>>>>>>> That's kind of a pointless question. >> >>>>>>>>>>> Well, it was a question that was of interest to me. >> >>>>>>>>>> No, it wasn't. It was just time-wasting. >> >>>>>>>>> Well, you were the one who turned the conversation into a time-wasting >>>>>>>>> exercise, >> >>>>>>>> Nope. That's always you. >> >>>>>>> This belief of yours strikes me as without rational foundation. >> >>>>>> Funny - that's what I think about the entire "ar" proposition. >> >>>>> I know. >> >>>> So does almost everyone. >> >>> No, only those >> >> Almost everyone. "ar" believers are a tiny minority, and most people >> have considered and rejected "ar" as a meaningful and useful guide to >> morality. >> > > Sorry, I misunderstood your statement. I don't believe that most > people have considered it, no. On some unspoken level, most have. You are wrong. This is another example of your misplaced belief in your own exceptionalism. You're just staggeringly egotistical and arrogant. >>>>>>>>>>>> Here's a better one, psycho: >>>>>>>>>>>> where does your impulse to waste time originate? >> >>>>>>>>>>> Why is that a better question? >> >>>>>>>>>> It's one that is of interest to me, and I care more about my interests >>>>>>>>>> than yours, which you tell me is ethical. >> >>>>>>>>> Well, ask yourself where does your impulse to waste time originate, >> >>>>>>>> I don't have that impulse; you do. >> >>>>>>> So you don't have the impulse to waste time; this conversation has >>>>>>> been a profitable use of time for you? >> >>>>>> Yes, of course - by presumption, as I am rational economic actor. >> >>>>> What has it done for you? >> >>>> What do you care? >> >>> You've piqued my curiosity. >> >> Okay, then. > |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:33 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter