 |
|
| 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! |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
|
|||
|
|||
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On 4/12/2012 3:06 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 12, 6:46 pm, George > wrote: >> On 4/12/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Apr 12, 5:53 am, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/11/2012 8:46 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 11, 8:37 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 4/11/2012 10:40 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 11, 8:51 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/10/2012 10:50 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 11, 2:16 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2012 3:54 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 10, 3:50 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2012 12:35 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 10:41 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/9/2012 12:04 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 6:42 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/9/2012 9:15 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 4:31 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2012 11:43 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 6:44 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2012 9:00 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 8, 7:06 pm, wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Animal rights activists" - actually, most are "passivists", doing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing more than talk - commonly invoke "speciesism" to try to explain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why human use of animals is wrong. This is meaningless. First of all, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all species are "speciesist": the members of all species pursue their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interests, as individual entities and as members of their species, with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no regard for the interests of other species. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some nonhuman animals do show concern for the interests of members of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other species, and in any case there is no good reason why we should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use the behaviour of nonhuman animals as a moral guide. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No other species show *moral* concern for interests of other species' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The point of the post is that those who decry "speciesism" are relying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on it to say that humans should not engage in it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, they are not. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, they are. You are requiring humans to behave a particular way due >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to their species. That's "speciesism" (an ugly, contrived word, in fact >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not even a real word at all, as every spell-checker in existence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrates by flagging it as not a word.) >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, they're not requiring that humans behave a particular way due to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their species. Saying that only moral agents have moral obligations is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not speciesism. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not what you're doing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You tell us what your motive is. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand this. >> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, you do. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "ar" passivists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot give a coherent explanation of why "speciesism" is wrong, except >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by invoking it themselves. Only humans are capable of conceiving of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interests of members of other species. To say that we /must/ is itself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "speciesist." >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You obviously don't understand what speciesism is. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do understand full well what it is. In fact, it's sophistry. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Secondly, the only way the passivists attempt to show that it's wrong is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by comparison with other "isms" that they claim, without explanation, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are inherently and "obviously" wrong: racism, sexism, "heterosexism", >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc. This comparison is cynical and dishonest. First, a discussion of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *why* racism and sexism are (or might be) wrong quickly reveals that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they comprise negative thoughts and actions against people of the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> species who share the same morally relevant characteristics as those who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are doing the discriminating. A person's race or sex has no bearing on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his ability to participate in the moral community of humanity. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are plenty of intellectually disabled humans who cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> participate in the moral comunnity of humanity to >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "marginal cases" doesn't work. It's useless. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've explained that to you before, too. The argument from species >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normality defeats it, among other things. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The argument from species normality is flawed. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't. It fully defeats the fake argument from marginal cases. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope; right. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What exactly are the premises of the argument from species normality? >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Above you wrote, "The argument from species normality is flawed." Do >>>>>>>>>>>> you mean to say you wrote that without knowing what the premises are? >>>>>>>>>>>> That seems very reckless and irresponsible. >> >>>>>>>>>>> I believe that one of the premises of the argument from species >>>>>>>>>>> normality is that the moral consideration an individual should get is >>>>>>>>>>> determined by what characteristics are typical for that individual's >>>>>>>>>>> species, and I believe that it is possible to construct thought- >>>>>>>>>>> experiments which show this premise to be problematic. >> >>>>>>>>>> Have a go at it. >> >>>>>>>>> Do you know the thought-experiment of the chimpanzee who can >>>>>>>>> understand advanced mathematics? >> >>>>>>>> Yes, of course. It's the case of freak intelligence. It fails, because >>>>>>>> it is not symmetric with a marginal human case. The actuality of the >>>>>>>> chimp with freak intelligence entails the potentiality of moral >>>>>>>> considerability, but the non-actuality of normal human cognition in the >>>>>>>> marginal human does *not* entail the non-potentiality of being a moral >>>>>>>> agent. We see this clearly with humans who are only temporarily >>>>>>>> incapacitated, or with children who mostly will develop to be moral agents. >> >>>>>>> What do you mean by "potentiality"? >> >>>>>> Because humans are the unique class who are moral agents, then without >>>>>> knowing anything else about a human being, you know at least that he has >>>>>> the potential to be or to become a moral actor. Furthermore, even when >>>>>> the actuality is that a human is not a moral actor, that doesn't mean he >>>>>> isn't potentially one. This is obviously true of normal human infants, >>>>>> people in a reversible coma, people under anesthesia, people who are >>>>>> asleep, and others. >> >>>>> Again: what do you *mean* by "potential"? >> >>>> Stop wasting time. It's not a difficult word, and English is your >>>> native language. >> >>> It is not plausible that all humans have the potential to be moral >>> agents. >> >> /ex ante/, all humans do have that potential. > > Why? **** off, time-waster. >> /ex post/ we see that the >> actuality is some humans have diminished capacity that prevents them >> from attaining the normal human potential. |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Threaded Mode
