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.