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!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-04-2012, 06:06 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

"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. 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."

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.

That leads to the second criticism of the passivists' comparison. The
member of a disadvantaged group was and is able to say, himself, that
his treatment at the hands of the advantaged group's members is based on
irrelevant considerations and is therefore wrong - he is able to
*demonstrate* that he is and ought to be seen as the moral equal of
those in the advantaged group.

The analogy with racism and sexism and other wholly *human* "isms" is
spurious.

The passivists cannot make a case as to *why* the interests of members
of other species ought to be given the same moral weight as the
interests of members of our own species. Forget about "marginal cases"
- that doesn't achieve anything.

  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-04-2012, 05:00 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

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.

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. Any moral theory at all will restrict the set of individuals
who have moral obligations to the class of moral agents. And also,
just about any moral theory that anyone accepts requires us to give
*some* consideration to the interests of nonhuman animals.

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 any greater degree
than nonhuman animals. These humans have the same morally relevant
characteristics as nonhuman animals. It is failing to give nonhuman
animals the same level of consideration that we think is due to these
humans that constitutes "speciesism".

That leads to the second criticism of the passivists' comparison. *The
member of a disadvantaged group was and is able to say, himself, that
his treatment at the hands of the advantaged group's members is based on
irrelevant considerations and is therefore wrong - he is able to
*demonstrate* that he is and ought to be seen as the moral equal of
those in the advantaged group.

The analogy with racism and sexism and other wholly *human* "isms" is
spurious.

The passivists cannot make a case as to *why* the interests of members
of other species ought to be given the same moral weight as the
interests of members of our own species. *Forget about "marginal cases"
- that doesn't achieve anything.


Equality of interests is the default starting position in ethics. If
you want to claim that your interests should be given more weight than
those of another group because your group is "special", the burden is
on you to explain why.
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-04-2012, 05:44 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

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.


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.


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.


That leads to the second criticism of the passivists' comparison. The
member of a disadvantaged group was and is able to say, himself, that
his treatment at the hands of the advantaged group's members is based on
irrelevant considerations and is therefore wrong - he is able to
*demonstrate* that he is and ought to be seen as the moral equal of
those in the advantaged group.

The analogy with racism and sexism and other wholly *human* "isms" is
spurious.

The passivists cannot make a case as to *why* the interests of members
of other species ought to be given the same moral weight as the
interests of members of our own species. Forget about "marginal cases"
- that doesn't achieve anything.


Equality of interests is the default starting position in ethics.


No.
  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-04-2012, 07:43 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 9, 6:44*am, George Plimpton 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. To say that moral agents have moral duties towards
those who are not moral agents is not speciesist.

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.

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?









That leads to the second criticism of the passivists' comparison. *The
member of a disadvantaged group was and is able to say, himself, that
his treatment at the hands of the advantaged group's members is based on
irrelevant considerations and is therefore wrong - he is able to
*demonstrate* that he is and ought to be seen as the moral equal of
those in the advantaged group.


The analogy with racism and sexism and other wholly *human* "isms" is
spurious.


The passivists cannot make a case as to *why* the interests of members
of other species ought to be given the same moral weight as the
interests of members of our own species. *Forget about "marginal cases"
- that doesn't achieve anything.


Equality of interests is the default starting position in ethics.


No.


  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-04-2012, 08:53 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

"Rupert" wrote
On Apr 9, 6:44 am, George Plimpton wrote:
"marginal cases" doesn't work. It's useless.


Why not?


You know why not.



  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-04-2012, 01:05 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

In article , notgenx32
@yahoo.com says...
Only humans are capable of conceiving of the
interests of members of other species. To say that we /must/ is itself
"speciesist."



great assumption given this idea of 'only humans are capable of...' has
been specifically defeated more than once. Some examples being abstract
thought, tool making, altruistic behavior and grief.

Given ...

the members of all species pursue their
interests, as individual entities and as members of their species,


then the "Animal rights activists" are not in violation.

The passivists cannot make a case as to *why* the interests of members
of other species ought to be given the same moral weight as the
interests of members of our own species.


Read: "The passivists cannot make a case that I will hear or accept".

For instance, the case was made thousands of years ago on the moral
weight, as you call it, of all life. You may not agree with any of this
but you also can not make it out to be a fringe element or unsupported
principle in human belief and hope to keep your position within reason.
  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-04-2012, 03:31 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

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.)


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.
  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-04-2012, 03:42 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/9/2012 5:05 AM, Zerkon wrote:
In [email protected] com, notgenx32
@yahoo.com says...
Only humans are capable of conceiving of the
interests of members of other species. To say that we /must/ is itself
"speciesist."



great assumption given this idea of 'only humans are capable of...' has
been specifically defeated more than once. Some examples being abstract
thought, tool making, altruistic behavior and grief.


It hasn't been defeated when it comes to moral agency. Only humans are
moral agents. In particular, only humans are capable of demonstrating
moral consideration for members of other species.


Given ...

the members of all species pursue their
interests, as individual entities and as members of their species,


then the "Animal rights activists" are not in violation.


"In violation" of what? What I said is that the "ar" criticism of
so-called "speciesism" is incoherent, in no small part because it relies
on it itself.



The passivists cannot make a case as to *why* the interests of members
of other species ought to be given the same moral weight as the
interests of members of our own species.


Read: "The passivists cannot make a case that I will hear or accept".


They haven't made a case. They take as an assumption the very thing
they must show, so they fail.
  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-04-2012, 03:43 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/9/2012 12:53 AM, Dutch wrote:
"Rupert" wrote
On Apr 9, 6:44 am, George Plimpton wrote:
"marginal cases" doesn't work. It's useless.


Why not?


You know why not.


He does indeed know why not. He knows that it's sophistry to begin
with, and he knows exactly why.
  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-04-2012, 05:15 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 9, 4:31*pm, George Plimpton 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.

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. There are many cogent
objections to it.


  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-04-2012, 05:42 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

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.


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.
  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-04-2012, 08:04 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 9, 6:42*pm, George Plimpton 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?









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.
  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-04-2012, 09:19 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 8, 5:06*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. *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."

This reminds me of a few years ago when Greenpeace were trying to stop
whaling because the numbers were so close to extinction, and a female
whale
was hauled up in the carcass was a 'chimera' a baby fetus that was a
cross
between two species that during normal evolution should not have
occurred.
The oceanographers figured that while the females pod was almost dead
or
population so sparce that she had been adopted into another herd and
had
managed to conceive. If the babycalf had survived it perhaps would
have begun
a newer cross species.

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.

where evolution of 'species' is on the agenda, of course sex is
relevent!
heterosexual sex within communities!

That leads to the second criticism of the passivists' comparison. *The
member of a disadvantaged group was and is able to say, himself, that
his treatment at the hands of the advantaged group's members is based on
irrelevant considerations and is therefore wrong - he is able to
*demonstrate* that he is and ought to be seen as the moral equal of
those in the advantaged group.

Did you have the name or identity of an article? or a name of a person
who
as you say " is able to say, himself," ? and if not why not and if
there is
racist bias or sexual perversion then who is the spokesperson ?

The analogy with racism and sexism and other wholly *human* "isms" is
spurious.

The passivists


by 'passivists' you refer to evolutionary enthusiasts & experts, any
animal rights activists or 'subnormal & alien species protection
activists'?

cannot make a case as to *why* the interests of members
of other species ought to be given the same moral weight as the
interests of members of our own species. *Forget about "marginal cases"
- that doesn't achieve anything.


Are animals of different sex morally oblivious that they could cause
offenses to men?
  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-04-2012, 09:41 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

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.



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.

Another way the bogus "marginal cases" argument is queered is by
pointing out that rather than elevate the moral consideration given to
animals, it would tend to lessen that given to the marginal cases.


You just don't have a sound argument against "speciesism". There never
was one - that's why so much of the blabber about it is spent trying to
tie it to other "isms" to which it is not comparable, rather than
leaving that crap out and showing what's wrong with it /per se/.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Irrational Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts) proves that"veganism" isn't about so-called "factory farms" at all Rudy Canoza[_8_] Vegan 0 19-08-2016 06:04 PM
"Speciesism" - a disgusting neologism, a specious criticim [email protected] Vegan 38 07-03-2014 08:20 PM
My 12" carbon steel wok shopping continues after the wrong item wassent by the rude lady from The Wokshop" Manda Ruby General Cooking 22 28-06-2010 10:19 PM
PING . . . "-a-" I think I know about your RED FRUIT SOUP!!!(spelled wrong, sorry!) Lynn from Fargo General Cooking 1 03-07-2009 11:45 PM
What's wrong with "mother" John LaBella Sourdough 5 21-08-2008 09:05 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:37 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017