Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
![]()
On 4/12/2012 3:08 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 12, 6:50 pm, George wrote: On 4/12/2012 9:00 AM, Rupert wrote: On Apr 12, 5:41 pm, George wrote: On 4/12/2012 7:27 AM, George Plimpton wrote: On 4/11/2012 11:29 PM, Dutch wrote: wrote in message ... On Apr 12, 12:23 am, wrote: wrote Most ethicists would agree that equal consideration of interests is the default starting position. For whom? My default starting position for consideration is my own interests, followed by my immediate family including my pets, my community, my country, mankind, higher level animals, rare plant species, lower level animals, the planet, and the economy is implied in there somewhere. The default starting position for every organism in existence is its owninterests, that is the way the world works. That is something that requires defence from the moral point of view. You mean like you defended your assertion, by claiming that most ethicists agree with you? Well I can't honestly say I've ever met an ethicist, nor has Woopert... I should have elaborated in my original reply that it's a sick joke for Woopert to be saying that the "default position" in ethics is to give equal consideration to the interests of any suffering-capable entity. First of all, I don't believe Woopert has studied ethics rigorously at all, let alone to a degree that would permit him to say with such comical "authority" what the consensus position among ethicists is. Second, it is completely obvious, due to the amount of controversy surrounding it, that Singer's position is distinctly a minority view. With as much controversy over it as there clearly is, I find it very hard to believe it's the "default" or consensus view of ethics. Rather, it's what Singer - and Woopert - would *want* to be the default view. That's why I maintain they are the ones with the burden of proof: given that most ethicists (or so I intuitively believe) and the overwhelming majority of humans do *not* accept it as the default, the burden clearly is on them. Carl Cohen said something in "The Animal Rights Debate" that has stuck with me. He wrote that when there is a huge majority holding a particular moral intuition, the overwhelming size of that majority gives it a particular weight that cannot simply be casually brushed away. It doesn't mean it's necessarily a correct intuition, but there's a presumption. Now, both the human concept of ethics, and ethics as a distinct branch of philosophy, have been around literally for millennia. With all that, the overwhelming majority of humans still consider it morally acceptable to give less weight to the interests of animals than to human interests, while at the same time most humans feel that *some* weight should be given to animals' interests, so it's not as if their moral intuition simply treats animals as holding no morally considerable interests at all. However imperfectly people may have thought this through, they have given thought to it, and concluded that animals' interests deserve less moral consideration than humans'. The Humane Society of the US (HSUS) says that 39% of US households own at least one dog, and 33% of households own at least one cat (interestingly, there are about 8 million more owned cats in the US than owned dogs, so many more households have multiple cats than multiple dogs.)http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/...facts/pet_owne... A pet products professional association gives about the same number of owned cats and dogs, but says the percentage of households owning one or the other is higherhttp://www.americanpetproducts.org/press_industrytrends.asp Most US households are comprised of more than one person, so it's very likely that more than 50% of Americans have a dog or a cat or both. I think most people give a fair amount of consideration to the interests of their animals. They spend over $50 billion a year on them, including almost $13.5 billion on medical care. If people didn't give considerable weight to the interests of these animals, they wouldn't spend nearly as much. Woopert and his corrupt pal Singer are going to have to do a lot of work to convince people they ought to be providing the same amount of medical care and same quality of food to their animals as they provide for themselves. That does not follow from the principle of equal consideration of interests. It follows from the fact that your position is distinctly a minority position that has been implicitly reject by the vast majority of humanity. No, it doesn't. It does. |
|
|||
![]()
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. |
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 16, 2:13*am, George Plimpton 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, which is not very interesting. In the actual historical situation of challenging the once widely held belief that negroes were entitled to less moral consideration, how would you say the burden of proof was met on that occasion? |
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 16, 2:13*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/12/2012 3:08 PM, Rupert wrote: On Apr 12, 6:50 pm, George *wrote: On 4/12/2012 9:00 AM, Rupert wrote: On Apr 12, 5:41 pm, George * *wrote: On 4/12/2012 7:27 AM, George Plimpton wrote: On 4/11/2012 11:29 PM, Dutch wrote: * *wrote in message ... On Apr 12, 12:23 am, * *wrote: * *wrote Most ethicists would agree that equal consideration of interests is the default starting position. For whom? My default starting position for consideration is my own interests, followed by my immediate family including my pets, my community, my country, mankind, higher level animals, rare plant species, lower level animals, the planet, and the economy is implied in there somewhere. The default starting position for every organism in existence is its owninterests, that is the way the world works. That is something that requires defence from the moral point of view. You mean like you defended your assertion, by claiming that most ethicists agree with you? Well I can't honestly say I've ever met an ethicist, nor has Woopert... I should have elaborated in my original reply that it's a sick joke for Woopert to be saying that the "default position" in ethics is to give equal consideration to the interests of any suffering-capable entity.. First of all, I don't believe Woopert has studied ethics rigorously at all, let alone to a degree that would permit him to say with such comical "authority" what the consensus position among ethicists is. Second, it is completely obvious, due to the amount of controversy surrounding it, that Singer's position is distinctly a minority view.. With as much controversy over it as there clearly is, I find it very hard to believe it's the "default" or consensus view of ethics. *Rather, it's what Singer - and Woopert - would *want* to be the default view.. That's why I maintain they are the ones with the burden of proof: *given that most ethicists (or so I intuitively believe) and the overwhelming majority of humans do *not* accept it as the default, the burden clearly is on them. Carl Cohen said something in "The Animal Rights Debate" that has stuck with me. *He wrote that when there is a huge majority holding a particular moral intuition, the overwhelming size of that majority gives it a particular weight that cannot simply be casually brushed away. *It doesn't mean it's necessarily a correct intuition, but there's a presumption. *Now, both the human concept of ethics, and ethics as a distinct branch of philosophy, have been around literally for millennia. * * With all that, the overwhelming majority of humans still consider it morally acceptable to give less weight to the interests of animals than to human interests, while at the same time most humans feel that *some* weight should be given to animals' interests, so it's not as if their moral intuition simply treats animals as holding no morally considerable interests at all. *However imperfectly people may have thought this through, they have given thought to it, and concluded that animals' interests deserve less moral consideration than humans'. The Humane Society of the US (HSUS) says that 39% of US households own at least one dog, and 33% of households own at least one cat (interestingly, there are about 8 million more owned cats in the US than owned dogs, so many more households have multiple cats than multiple dogs.)http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/...facts/pet_owne... * * A pet products professional association gives about the same number of owned cats and dogs, but says the percentage of households owning one or the other is higherhttp://www.americanpetproducts.org/press_industrytrends.aspMost US households are comprised of more than one person, so it's very likely that more than 50% of Americans have a dog or a cat or both. *I think most people give a fair amount of consideration to the interests of their animals. *They spend over $50 billion a year on them, including almost $13.5 billion on medical care. *If people didn't give considerable weight to the interests of these animals, they wouldn't spend nearly as much. Woopert and his corrupt pal Singer are going to have to do a lot of work to convince people they ought to be providing the same amount of medical care and same quality of food to their animals as they provide for themselves. That does not follow from the principle of equal consideration of interests. It follows from the fact that your position is distinctly a minority position that has been implicitly reject by the vast majority of humanity. No, it doesn't. It does. When I wrote "That does not follow from the principle of equal consideration of interests", the "that" obviously refers to the statement that "people ought to be providing the same amount of medical care and the same quality of food to their animals as they provide for themselves". So what you are saying is "From the fact that your position is distinctly a minority position that has been implicitly rejected by the vast majority of humanity, it follows that people ought to be providing the same amount of medical care and the same quality of food to their animals as they provide for themselves." This is what happens when you don't read the posts to which you are responding properly. |
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 16, 2:13*am, George Plimpton 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? |
|
|||
![]()
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, but also that it is the consensus of ethicists that equal consideration is due suffering-capable entities regardless of species. You keep piling up the burdens of proof that you then shirk. |
|
|||
![]()
On 4/15/2012 6:34 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George wrote: On 4/12/2012 3:08 PM, Rupert wrote: On Apr 12, 6:50 pm, George wrote: On 4/12/2012 9:00 AM, Rupert wrote: On Apr 12, 5:41 pm, George wrote: On 4/12/2012 7:27 AM, George Plimpton wrote: On 4/11/2012 11:29 PM, Dutch wrote: wrote in message ... On Apr 12, 12:23 am, wrote: wrote Most ethicists would agree that equal consideration of interests is the default starting position. For whom? My default starting position for consideration is my own interests, followed by my immediate family including my pets, my community, my country, mankind, higher level animals, rare plant species, lower level animals, the planet, and the economy is implied in there somewhere. The default starting position for every organism in existence is its owninterests, that is the way the world works. That is something that requires defence from the moral point of view. You mean like you defended your assertion, by claiming that most ethicists agree with you? Well I can't honestly say I've ever met an ethicist, nor has Woopert... I should have elaborated in my original reply that it's a sick joke for Woopert to be saying that the "default position" in ethics is to give equal consideration to the interests of any suffering-capable entity. First of all, I don't believe Woopert has studied ethics rigorously at all, let alone to a degree that would permit him to say with such comical "authority" what the consensus position among ethicists is. Second, it is completely obvious, due to the amount of controversy surrounding it, that Singer's position is distinctly a minority view. With as much controversy over it as there clearly is, I find it very hard to believe it's the "default" or consensus view of ethics. Rather, it's what Singer - and Woopert - would *want* to be the default view. That's why I maintain they are the ones with the burden of proof: given that most ethicists (or so I intuitively believe) and the overwhelming majority of humans do *not* accept it as the default, the burden clearly is on them. Carl Cohen said something in "The Animal Rights Debate" that has stuck with me. He wrote that when there is a huge majority holding a particular moral intuition, the overwhelming size of that majority gives it a particular weight that cannot simply be casually brushed away. It doesn't mean it's necessarily a correct intuition, but there's a presumption. Now, both the human concept of ethics, and ethics as a distinct branch of philosophy, have been around literally for millennia. With all that, the overwhelming majority of humans still consider it morally acceptable to give less weight to the interests of animals than to human interests, while at the same time most humans feel that *some* weight should be given to animals' interests, so it's not as if their moral intuition simply treats animals as holding no morally considerable interests at all. However imperfectly people may have thought this through, they have given thought to it, and concluded that animals' interests deserve less moral consideration than humans'. The Humane Society of the US (HSUS) says that 39% of US households own at least one dog, and 33% of households own at least one cat (interestingly, there are about 8 million more owned cats in the US than owned dogs, so many more households have multiple cats than multiple dogs.)http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/...facts/pet_owne... A pet products professional association gives about the same number of owned cats and dogs, but says the percentage of households owning one or the other is higherhttp://www.americanpetproducts.org/press_industrytrends.aspMost US households are comprised of more than one person, so it's very likely that more than 50% of Americans have a dog or a cat or both. I think most people give a fair amount of consideration to the interests of their animals. They spend over $50 billion a year on them, including almost $13.5 billion on medical care. If people didn't give considerable weight to the interests of these animals, they wouldn't spend nearly as much. Woopert and his corrupt pal Singer are going to have to do a lot of work to convince people they ought to be providing the same amount of medical care and same quality of food to their animals as they provide for themselves. That does not follow from the principle of equal consideration of interests. It follows from the fact that your position is distinctly a minority position that has been implicitly reject by the vast majority of humanity. No, it doesn't. It does. When I wrote "That does not follow from the principle of equal consideration of interests", I don't care about that. I reject that principle, and I don't believe you that "equal consideration" across species is the default position of ethics. You're bullshitting. |
|
|||
![]()
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. |
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 16, 4:58*am, George Plimpton 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, and my friend who is a PhD student in metaethics agrees with me. You keep piling up the burdens of proof that you then shirk. What do you want me to try to prove? |
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 16, 4:59*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/15/2012 6:34 PM, Rupert wrote: On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George *wrote: On 4/12/2012 3:08 PM, Rupert wrote: On Apr 12, 6:50 pm, George * *wrote: On 4/12/2012 9:00 AM, Rupert wrote: On Apr 12, 5:41 pm, George * * *wrote: On 4/12/2012 7:27 AM, George Plimpton wrote: On 4/11/2012 11:29 PM, Dutch wrote: * * *wrote in message ... On Apr 12, 12:23 am, * * *wrote: * * *wrote Most ethicists would agree that equal consideration of interests is the default starting position. For whom? My default starting position for consideration is my own interests, followed by my immediate family including my pets, my community, my country, mankind, higher level animals, rare plant species, lower level animals, the planet, and the economy is implied in there somewhere. The default starting position for every organism in existence is its owninterests, that is the way the world works. That is something that requires defence from the moral point of view. You mean like you defended your assertion, by claiming that most ethicists agree with you? Well I can't honestly say I've ever met an ethicist, nor has Woopert... I should have elaborated in my original reply that it's a sick joke for Woopert to be saying that the "default position" in ethics is to give equal consideration to the interests of any suffering-capable entity. First of all, I don't believe Woopert has studied ethics rigorously at all, let alone to a degree that would permit him to say with such comical "authority" what the consensus position among ethicists is.. Second, it is completely obvious, due to the amount of controversy surrounding it, that Singer's position is distinctly a minority view. With as much controversy over it as there clearly is, I find it very hard to believe it's the "default" or consensus view of ethics. *Rather, it's what Singer - and Woopert - would *want* to be the default view. That's why I maintain they are the ones with the burden of proof: *given that most ethicists (or so I intuitively believe) and the overwhelming majority of humans do *not* accept it as the default, the burden clearly is on them. Carl Cohen said something in "The Animal Rights Debate" that has stuck with me. *He wrote that when there is a huge majority holding a particular moral intuition, the overwhelming size of that majority gives it a particular weight that cannot simply be casually brushed away.. *It doesn't mean it's necessarily a correct intuition, but there's a presumption. *Now, both the human concept of ethics, and ethics as a distinct branch of philosophy, have been around literally for millennia. * * *With all that, the overwhelming majority of humans still consider it morally acceptable to give less weight to the interests of animals than to human interests, while at the same time most humans feel that *some* weight should be given to animals' interests, so it's not as if their moral intuition simply treats animals as holding no morally considerable interests at all. *However imperfectly people may have thought this through, they have given thought to it, and concluded that animals' interests deserve less moral consideration than humans'. The Humane Society of the US (HSUS) says that 39% of US households own at least one dog, and 33% of households own at least one cat (interestingly, there are about 8 million more owned cats in the US than owned dogs, so many more households have multiple cats than multiple dogs.)http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/...facts/pet_owne... * * *A pet products professional association gives about the same number of owned cats and dogs, but says the percentage of households owning one or the other is higherhttp://www.americanpetproducts.org/press_industrytrends.aspMostUS households are comprised of more than one person, so it's very likely that more than 50% of Americans have a dog or a cat or both. *I think most people give a fair amount of consideration to the interests of their animals. *They spend over $50 billion a year on them, including almost $13.5 billion on medical care. *If people didn't give considerable weight to the interests of these animals, they wouldn't spend nearly as much. Woopert and his corrupt pal Singer are going to have to do a lot of work to convince people they ought to be providing the same amount of medical care and same quality of food to their animals as they provide for themselves. That does not follow from the principle of equal consideration of interests. It follows from the fact that your position is distinctly a minority position that has been implicitly reject by the vast majority of humanity. No, it doesn't. It does. When I wrote "That does not follow from the principle of equal consideration of interests", I don't care about that. You ought to care about what you are saying, otherwise people will get the idea that you are a fool who babbles nonsense without rhyme or reason. I reject that principle, and I don't believe you that "equal consideration" across species is the default position of ethics. *You're bullshitting. Yes, I am certainly aware that you reject the principle. You probably believe in some sort of equal consideration for humans though, don't you? Would you be able to tell us more about that? |
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 16, 4:59*am, George Plimpton 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? |
|
|||
![]()
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. You keep piling up the burdens of proof that you then shirk. What do you want me to try to prove? All of it. |
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 16, 2:12*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/12/2012 3:06 PM, Rupert wrote: On Apr 12, 6:46 pm, George *wrote: On 4/12/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote: On Apr 12, 5:53 am, George * *wrote: On 4/11/2012 8:46 PM, Rupert wrote: On Apr 11, 8:37 pm, George * * *wrote: On 4/11/2012 10:40 AM, Rupert wrote: On Apr 11, 8:51 am, George * * * *wrote: On 4/10/2012 10:50 PM, Rupert wrote: On Apr 11, 2:16 am, George * * * * *wrote: On 4/10/2012 3:54 PM, Rupert wrote: On Apr 10, 3:50 pm, George * * * * * *wrote: On 4/10/2012 12:35 AM, Rupert wrote: On Apr 9, 10:41 pm, George * * * * * * *wrote: On 4/9/2012 12:04 PM, Rupert wrote: On Apr 9, 6:42 pm, George * * * * * * * *wrote: On 4/9/2012 9:15 AM, Rupert wrote: On Apr 9, 4:31 pm, George * * * * * * * * *wrote: On 4/8/2012 11:43 PM, Rupert wrote: On Apr 9, 6:44 am, George * * * * * * * * * *wrote: On 4/8/2012 9:00 PM, Rupert wrote: On Apr 8, 7:06 pm, wrote: "Animal rights activists" - actually, most are "passivists", doing nothing more than talk - commonly invoke "speciesism" to try to explain why human use of animals is wrong. *This is meaningless. *First of all, all species are "speciesist": *the members of all species pursue their interests, as individual entities and as members of their species, with no regard for the interests of other species. Some nonhuman animals do show concern for the interests of members of other species, and in any case there is no good reason why we should use the behaviour of nonhuman animals as a moral guide. No other species show *moral* concern for interests of other species' members. The point of the post is that those who decry "speciesism" are relying on it to say that humans should not engage in it. No, they are not. Yes, they are. *You are requiring humans to behave a particular way due to their species. *That's "speciesism" (an ugly, contrived word, in fact not even a real word at all, as every spell-checker in existence demonstrates by flagging it as not a word.) No, they're not requiring that humans behave a particular way due to their species. Saying that only moral agents have moral obligations is not speciesism. That's not what you're doing. Why not? You tell us what your motive is. I don't understand this. Yes, you do. The "ar" passivists cannot give a coherent explanation of why "speciesism" is wrong, except by invoking it themselves. *Only humans are capable of conceiving of the interests of members of other species. *To say that we /must/ is itself "speciesist." It's not. It is. You obviously don't understand what speciesism is. I do understand full well what it is. *In fact, it's sophistry. Secondly, the only way the passivists attempt to show that it's wrong is by comparison with other "isms" that they claim, without explanation, are inherently and "obviously" wrong: *racism, sexism, "heterosexism", etc. *This comparison is cynical and dishonest. *First, a discussion of *why* racism and sexism are (or might be) wrong quickly reveals that they comprise negative thoughts and actions against people of the same species who share the same morally relevant characteristics as those who are doing the discriminating. *A person's race or sex has no bearing on his ability to participate in the moral community of humanity. There are plenty of intellectually disabled humans who cannot participate in the moral comunnity of humanity to "marginal cases" doesn't work. *It's useless. Why not? I've explained that to you before, too. *The argument from species normality defeats it, among other things. The argument from species normality is flawed. No, it isn't. *It fully defeats the fake argument from marginal cases. Wrong. Nope; right. What exactly are the premises of the argument from species normality? Above you wrote, "The argument from species normality is flawed." *Do you mean to say you wrote that without knowing what the premises are? That seems very reckless and irresponsible. I believe that one of the premises of the argument from species normality is that the moral consideration an individual should get is determined by what characteristics are typical for that individual's species, and I believe that it is possible to construct thought- experiments which show this premise to be problematic. Have a go at it. Do you know the thought-experiment of the chimpanzee who can understand advanced mathematics? Yes, of course. *It's the case of freak intelligence. *It fails, because it is not symmetric with a marginal human case. *The actuality of the chimp with freak intelligence entails the potentiality of moral considerability, but the non-actuality of normal human cognition in the marginal human does *not* entail the non-potentiality of being a moral agent. *We see this clearly with humans who are only temporarily incapacitated, or with children who mostly will develop to be moral agents. What do you mean by "potentiality"? Because humans are the unique class who are moral agents, then without knowing anything else about a human being, you know at least that he has the potential to be or to become a moral actor. *Furthermore, even when the actuality is that a human is not a moral actor, that doesn't mean he isn't potentially one. *This is obviously true of normal human infants, people in a reversible coma, people under anesthesia, people who are asleep, and others. Again: what do you *mean* by "potential"? Stop wasting time. *It's not a difficult word, and English is your native language. It is not plausible that all humans have the potential to be moral agents. /ex ante/, all humans do have that potential. Why? **** off, time-waster. You think it's a waste of time to try to defend your position? |
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 16, 5:37*am, George Plimpton 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, and it might be fair to say that he would be in a better position to know than you. 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? |
|
|||
![]()
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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|