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.