 |
|
| 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 4/16/2012 11:45 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 16, 8:37 pm, George > wrote: >> On 4/16/2012 11:11 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Apr 16, 4:45 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 4/15/2012 11:16 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 16, 6:36 am, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 4/15/2012 8:43 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 16, 2:12 am, George > 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? >> >>>>>> The attempted time wasting is when you bitchily demand that I explain >>>>>> what I've already explained many times. >> >>>>> I didn't. >> >>>> You did. You attempt to waste my time in this manner quite often, actually. >> >>> I didn't. >> >> You did. It's just one more in a string of attempts at wasting my time. > > If you're so worried about wasting your time then why do you spend so > much time on this newsgroup? I don't. |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Threaded Mode
