On Apr 18, 7:18*pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 7:38 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ....
>
> >> > On Apr 17, 9:25 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> >> >> > Yes, you're right that it is highly controversial, and I never
> >> >> > suggested otherwise, but he confirmed my belief that the majority
> >> >> > opinion of ethicists is that different amounts of consideration
> >> >> > based
> >> >> > on species is something that needs to be justified, the burden of
> >> >> > proof is on the speciesist.
>
> >> >> The consideration differences that exist in so-called "speciesism" are
> >> >> not
> >> >> actually based on species. One thought experiment to illustrate would
> >> >> be
> >> >> to
> >> >> imagine that a friendly extraterrestrial race of beings arrived on
> >> >> earth
> >> >> that had superior intellectual capacities to humans. That species
> >> >> would
> >> >> automatically be given full consideration equal to humans, and it
> >> >> would
> >> >> not
> >> >> be based on species, it would be based on the totality of the entire
> >> >> constellation of capacities inherent *in* the species. The reason that
> >> >> other
> >> >> "isms" like racism and sexism are wrong is that they are based on
> >> >> misconceptions about the capacities of the groups they discriminate
> >> >> against.
> >> >> The discrimination we have against sea sponges is not based on a
> >> >> misconception.
>
> >> >> There's your proof, and explanation.
>
> >> > But when confronted with two cases, one involving a member of your own
> >> > species who lacks the usual capacities for your species
>
> >> You're talking about abilities, not capacities.
> > No, I'm not.
>
> Yes you are, because every member of the human species has the capacities of
> a human which then manifest in the concurrent abilities barring some
> accident or misfortune. If a human were born without a brain we would
> probably consider euthanizing them, like Harrison.
>

I don't believe that any meaningful notion of "capacities" is
available on which this claim is plausible.

>
>
> >> > and one
> >> > involving a member of another species, you discriminate on the basis
> >> > of species.
>
> >> No, I don't.
>
> > Good to hear.
>
> Look back to my original statement, I discriminate based on the whole
> constellation of capacities held by humans, which *may* be held by some as
> yet undiscovered species. I also discriminate between other non-human
> species based on *their* sets of inherent capacities, e.g. a gorilla is
> valued differently than a sea sponge. It is simply absurd to claim that one
> is not a so-called "speciesist".

The sets of inherent capacities that individuals have is not uniform
across each species, on any meaningful construal of what "capacities"
means.

"Rupert" > wrote in message
...
> On Apr 18, 7:18 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 18, 7:38 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >> > On Apr 17, 9:25 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> >> >> > Yes, you're right that it is highly controversial, and I never
>> >> >> > suggested otherwise, but he confirmed my belief that the majority
>> >> >> > opinion of ethicists is that different amounts of consideration
>> >> >> > based
>> >> >> > on species is something that needs to be justified, the burden of
>> >> >> > proof is on the speciesist.
>>
>> >> >> The consideration differences that exist in so-called "speciesism"
>> >> >> are
>> >> >> not
>> >> >> actually based on species. One thought experiment to illustrate
>> >> >> would
>> >> >> be
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> imagine that a friendly extraterrestrial race of beings arrived on
>> >> >> earth
>> >> >> that had superior intellectual capacities to humans. That species
>> >> >> would
>> >> >> automatically be given full consideration equal to humans, and it
>> >> >> would
>> >> >> not
>> >> >> be based on species, it would be based on the totality of the
>> >> >> entire
>> >> >> constellation of capacities inherent *in* the species. The reason
>> >> >> that
>> >> >> other
>> >> >> "isms" like racism and sexism are wrong is that they are based on
>> >> >> misconceptions about the capacities of the groups they discriminate
>> >> >> against.
>> >> >> The discrimination we have against sea sponges is not based on a
>> >> >> misconception.
>>
>> >> >> There's your proof, and explanation.
>>
>> >> > But when confronted with two cases, one involving a member of your
>> >> > own
>> >> > species who lacks the usual capacities for your species
>>
>> >> You're talking about abilities, not capacities.
>> > No, I'm not.
>>
>> Yes you are, because every member of the human species has the capacities
>> of
>> a human which then manifest in the concurrent abilities barring some
>> accident or misfortune. If a human were born without a brain we would
>> probably consider euthanizing them, like Harrison.
>>
>
> I don't believe that any meaningful notion of "capacities" is
> available on which this claim is plausible.

Sure there is. What are the cognitive capacities of say, a chicken, or a
housefly? That is a broad question that recognizes that some chickens or
houseflies may have been born retarded, have been hit by a blunt object, or
on the other hand may be especially clever. The question can still answered
though. It is different than asking, "what are the cognitive capacities of
*that specific* chicken or housefly?", in which case there are assumptions
involved. In either case you can be pretty damn confident of the upper
limits, which is the main thing. Any being through some form of impairment
may lose some or all of it's abilities, that is not what inherent capacity
is about.
>
>>
>>
>> >> > and one
>> >> > involving a member of another species, you discriminate on the basis
>> >> > of species.
>>
>> >> No, I don't.
>>
>> > Good to hear.
>>
>> Look back to my original statement, I discriminate based on the whole
>> constellation of capacities held by humans, which *may* be held by some
>> as
>> yet undiscovered species. I also discriminate between other non-human
>> species based on *their* sets of inherent capacities, e.g. a gorilla is
>> valued differently than a sea sponge. It is simply absurd to claim that
>> one
>> is not a so-called "speciesist".
>
> The sets of inherent capacities that individuals have is not uniform
> across each species, on any meaningful construal of what "capacities"
> means.

It's pretty uniform. I don't see any eagles doing things that would be
considered outside the normal realm of the capacities of eagles. Human
capacity covers a pretty wide range, which is kind of the point.

On Apr 18, 11:57*pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 7:18 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ....
>
> >> > On Apr 18, 7:38 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> >> ...
>
> >> >> > On Apr 17, 9:25 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> >> >> >> > Yes, you're right that it is highly controversial, and I never
> >> >> >> > suggested otherwise, but he confirmed my belief that the majority
> >> >> >> > opinion of ethicists is that different amounts of consideration
> >> >> >> > based
> >> >> >> > on species is something that needs to be justified, the burden of
> >> >> >> > proof is on the speciesist.
>
> >> >> >> The consideration differences that exist in so-called "speciesism"
> >> >> >> are
> >> >> >> not
> >> >> >> actually based on species. One thought experiment to illustrate
> >> >> >> would
> >> >> >> be
> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> imagine that a friendly extraterrestrial race of beings arrived on
> >> >> >> earth
> >> >> >> that had superior intellectual capacities to humans. That species
> >> >> >> would
> >> >> >> automatically be given full consideration equal to humans, and it
> >> >> >> would
> >> >> >> not
> >> >> >> be based on species, it would be based on the totality of the
> >> >> >> entire
> >> >> >> constellation of capacities inherent *in* the species. The reason
> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> other
> >> >> >> "isms" like racism and sexism are wrong is that they are based on
> >> >> >> misconceptions about the capacities of the groups they discriminate
> >> >> >> against.
> >> >> >> The discrimination we have against sea sponges is not based on a
> >> >> >> misconception.
>
> >> >> >> There's your proof, and explanation.
>
> >> >> > But when confronted with two cases, one involving a member of your
> >> >> > own
> >> >> > species who lacks the usual capacities for your species
>
> >> >> You're talking about abilities, not capacities.
> >> > No, I'm not.
>
> >> Yes you are, because every member of the human species has the capacities
> >> of
> >> a human which then manifest in the concurrent abilities barring some
> >> accident or misfortune. If a human were born without a brain we would
> >> probably consider euthanizing them, like Harrison.
>
> > I don't believe that any meaningful notion of "capacities" is
> > available on which this claim is plausible.
>
> Sure there is. What are the cognitive capacities of say, a chicken, or a
> housefly? That is a broad question that recognizes that some chickens or
> houseflies may have been born retarded, have been hit by a blunt object, or
> on the other hand may be especially clever. The question can still answered
> though. It is different than asking, "what are the cognitive capacities of
> *that specific* chicken or housefly?", in which case there are assumptions
> involved. In either case you can be pretty damn confident of the upper
> limits, which is the main thing. Any being through some form of impairment
> may lose some or all of it's abilities, that is not what inherent capacity
> is about.
>

As I say, I don't believe you are using any meaningful notion of
"inherent capacity" here.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> > and one
> >> >> > involving a member of another species, you discriminate on the basis
> >> >> > of species.
>
> >> >> No, I don't.
>
> >> > Good to hear.
>
> >> Look back to my original statement, I discriminate based on the whole
> >> constellation of capacities held by humans, which *may* be held by some
> >> as
> >> yet undiscovered species. I also discriminate between other non-human
> >> species based on *their* sets of inherent capacities, e.g. a gorilla is
> >> valued differently than a sea sponge. It is simply absurd to claim that
> >> one
> >> is not a so-called "speciesist".
>
> > The sets of inherent capacities that individuals have is not uniform
> > across each species, on any meaningful construal of what "capacities"
> > means.
>
> It's pretty uniform. I don't see any eagles doing things that would be
> considered outside the normal realm of the capacities of eagles. Human
> capacity covers a pretty wide range, which is kind of the point.

"Rupert" > wrote
> On Apr 18, 11:57 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:

>> Sure there is. What are the cognitive capacities of say, a chicken, or a
>> housefly? That is a broad question that recognizes that some chickens or
>> houseflies may have been born retarded, have been hit by a blunt object,
>> or
>> on the other hand may be especially clever. The question can still
>> answered
>> though. It is different than asking, "what are the cognitive capacities
>> of
>> *that specific* chicken or housefly?", in which case there are
>> assumptions
>> involved. In either case you can be pretty damn confident of the upper
>> limits, which is the main thing. Any being through some form of
>> impairment
>> may lose some or all of it's abilities, that is not what inherent
>> capacity
>> is about.
>>
>
> As I say, I don't believe you are using any meaningful notion of
> "inherent capacity" here.

Would you not concede that bats are born with the inherent capacity of
navigation using sonar?

On Apr 19, 10:13*pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 11:57 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> Sure there is. What are the cognitive capacities of say, a chicken, or a
> >> housefly? That is a broad question that recognizes that some chickens or
> >> houseflies may have been born retarded, have been hit by a blunt object,
> >> or
> >> on the other hand may be especially clever. The question can still
> >> answered
> >> though. It is different than asking, "what are the cognitive capacities
> >> of
> >> *that specific* chicken or housefly?", in which case there are
> >> assumptions
> >> involved. In either case you can be pretty damn confident of the upper
> >> limits, which is the main thing. Any being through some form of
> >> impairment
> >> may lose some or all of it's abilities, that is not what inherent
> >> capacity
> >> is about.
>
> > As I say, I don't believe you are using any meaningful notion of
> > "inherent capacity" here.
>
> Would you not concede that bats are born with the inherent capacity of
> navigation using sonar?

That sounds pretty reasonable to me, yes.

"Rupert" > wrote in message
...
> On Apr 19, 10:13 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 18, 11:57 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> Sure there is. What are the cognitive capacities of say, a chicken, or
>> >> a
>> >> housefly? That is a broad question that recognizes that some chickens
>> >> or
>> >> houseflies may have been born retarded, have been hit by a blunt
>> >> object,
>> >> or
>> >> on the other hand may be especially clever. The question can still
>> >> answered
>> >> though. It is different than asking, "what are the cognitive
>> >> capacities
>> >> of
>> >> *that specific* chicken or housefly?", in which case there are
>> >> assumptions
>> >> involved. In either case you can be pretty damn confident of the upper
>> >> limits, which is the main thing. Any being through some form of
>> >> impairment
>> >> may lose some or all of it's abilities, that is not what inherent
>> >> capacity
>> >> is about.
>>
>> > As I say, I don't believe you are using any meaningful notion of
>> > "inherent capacity" here.
>>
>> Would you not concede that bats are born with the inherent capacity of
>> navigation using sonar?
>
> That sounds pretty reasonable to me, yes.

That's what I mean by inherent capacity. When we think of bats one of the
first things we think of is their sonar. Some bats undoubtedly for some
reason don't have it, or it never develops properly, but it is in the DNA of
bats. But it's not the whole story of bats, they are also a *mammal that can
fly*, that's another amazing inherent quality of the bat. They eat a lot of
bugs too. So when we refer to "bats" we mean everything we know about
"bats". We know a lot of other stuff about bats, That's what "species"
relates, the accumulation of all the inherent capacities of a species . We
relate to bats based on that, we do it for for worms and sponges and fruit
flies, gorillas and humans. We don't give them equal consideration, we give
them consideration based on their "kind" and all that implies.

On Apr 20, 12:07*am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 19, 10:13 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> >> > On Apr 18, 11:57 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> Sure there is. What are the cognitive capacities of say, a chicken, or
> >> >> a
> >> >> housefly? That is a broad question that recognizes that some chickens
> >> >> or
> >> >> houseflies may have been born retarded, have been hit by a blunt
> >> >> object,
> >> >> or
> >> >> on the other hand may be especially clever. The question can still
> >> >> answered
> >> >> though. It is different than asking, "what are the cognitive
> >> >> capacities
> >> >> of
> >> >> *that specific* chicken or housefly?", in which case there are
> >> >> assumptions
> >> >> involved. In either case you can be pretty damn confident of the upper
> >> >> limits, which is the main thing. Any being through some form of
> >> >> impairment
> >> >> may lose some or all of it's abilities, that is not what inherent
> >> >> capacity
> >> >> is about.
>
> >> > As I say, I don't believe you are using any meaningful notion of
> >> > "inherent capacity" here.
>
> >> Would you not concede that bats are born with the inherent capacity of
> >> navigation using sonar?
>
> > That sounds pretty reasonable to me, yes.
>
> That's what I mean by inherent capacity. When we think of bats one of the
> first things we think of is their sonar. Some bats undoubtedly for some
> reason don't have it, or it never develops properly, but it is in the DNA of
> bats.

It is in the DNA of bats in general, yes, if you were looking at an
individual bat who lacked the ability then whether or not the capacity
was still "in the DNA" would be a scientific research programme.

> But it's not the whole story of bats, they are also a *mammal that can
> fly*, that's another amazing inherent quality of the bat. They eat a lot of
> bugs too. So when we refer to "bats" we mean everything we know about
> "bats". We know a lot of other stuff about bats, That's what "species"
> relates, the accumulation of all the inherent capacities of a species . We
> relate to bats based on that, we do it for for worms and sponges and fruit
> flies, gorillas and humans. We don't give them equal consideration, we give
> them consideration based on their "kind" and all that implies.

Another option is to give each individual bat consideration based on
the abilities they actually possess.