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  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
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  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/9/2012 5:05 AM, Zerkon wrote:
> In article<yt6dnYnAlbcGWBzSnZ2dnUVZ5jednZ2d@giganews. 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  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
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/.
  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

Why *should* humans extend equal moral consideration to non-human
animals? More to the point: why should they be *obliged* to do so?

No reason at all.
  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/9/2012 9:03 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
> Why *should* humans extend equal moral consideration to non-human
> animals? More to the point: why should they be *obliged* to do so?
>
> No reason at all.


The problem, as has been amply demonstrated, is that "ar" takes as a
basic axiomatic assumption the very thing they must demonstrate, and so
it fails to demonstrate what it must. "ar" simply *assumes* that
animals must be shown equal moral consideration, and then invalidly
demands that opponents show why they shouldn't be. It's a failure.
"ar" must demonstrate *why* animals must be shown equal moral
consideration, and to date they've never been able to do so.
  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it


"George Plimpton" > wrote
> On 4/9/2012 9:03 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> Why *should* humans extend equal moral consideration to non-human
>> animals? More to the point: why should they be *obliged* to do so?
>>
>> No reason at all.

>
> The problem, as has been amply demonstrated, is that "ar" takes as a
> basic axiomatic assumption the very thing they must demonstrate, and so
> it fails to demonstrate what it must. "ar" simply *assumes* that
> animals must be shown equal moral consideration, and then invalidly
> demands that opponents show why they shouldn't be. It's a failure.
> "ar" must demonstrate *why* animals must be shown equal moral
> consideration, and to date they've never been able to do so.


They never will, because its impossible.
  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/9/2012 10:59 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
> "George Plimpton" > wrote
>> On 4/9/2012 9:03 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> Why *should* humans extend equal moral consideration to non-human
>>> animals? More to the point: why should they be *obliged* to do so?
>>>
>>> No reason at all.

>>
>> The problem, as has been amply demonstrated, is that "ar" takes as a
>> basic axiomatic assumption the very thing they must demonstrate, and
>> so it fails to demonstrate what it must. "ar" simply *assumes* that
>> animals must be shown equal moral consideration, and then invalidly
>> demands that opponents show why they shouldn't be. It's a failure.
>> "ar" must demonstrate *why* animals must be shown equal moral
>> consideration, and to date they've never been able to do so.

>
> They never will, because its impossible.


I believe they can't do it, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
However, when one starts by assuming the very thing one must prove, that
does nothing at all to advance the cause.
  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

"George Plimpton" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/9/2012 10:59 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>
>> "George Plimpton" > wrote
>>> On 4/9/2012 9:03 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> Why *should* humans extend equal moral consideration to non-human
>>>> animals? More to the point: why should they be *obliged* to do so?
>>>>
>>>> No reason at all.
>>>
>>> The problem, as has been amply demonstrated, is that "ar" takes as a
>>> basic axiomatic assumption the very thing they must demonstrate, and
>>> so it fails to demonstrate what it must. "ar" simply *assumes* that
>>> animals must be shown equal moral consideration, and then invalidly
>>> demands that opponents show why they shouldn't be. It's a failure.
>>> "ar" must demonstrate *why* animals must be shown equal moral
>>> consideration, and to date they've never been able to do so.

>>
>> They never will, because its impossible.

>
> I believe they can't do it, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
> However, when one starts by assuming the very thing one must prove, that
> does nothing at all to advance the cause.


Its physically impossible, the environment around us is thick with animal
life. The only way to begin to extend consideration is to be selective, say
by size, and that itself is already speciesist.




  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 9, 10:41*pm, George Plimpton > 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.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>> 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?

> 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.
>


It would probably do both.

> You just don't have a sound argument against "speciesism".


The burden of proof is on the *defender* of speciesism. You don't have
a sound argument in *favour* of 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/.


  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 9, 10:54*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 10:06:34 -0700, 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.

>
> * * That's for sure. If humans were not speciesist we could no longer survive
> since rodents, bugs and germs would eventually wipe us out. Early humans also
> would not have been able to defend themselves from predators if they didn't care
> more for themselves than they do for the predators.
> . . .
>
> >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.

>
> * * Someone who honestly felt that way would be insane and a danger to society.
> They would feel no worse about hitting a child with their car than they would a
> snake, which would truly be insane from my pov.


That does not follow.
  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

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.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.


>> 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.
>>

>
> It would probably do both.


No.


>> You just don't have a sound argument against "speciesism".

>
> The burden of proof is on the *defender* of speciesism.


The burden of proof is on the "ar" extremists who claim non-human
animals deserve equal moral consideration.
  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 10, 6:14*am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "George Plimpton" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4/9/2012 10:59 PM, Dutch wrote:

>
> >> "George Plimpton" > wrote
> >>> On 4/9/2012 9:03 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
> >>>> Why *should* humans extend equal moral consideration to non-human
> >>>> animals? More to the point: why should they be *obliged* to do so?

>
> >>>> No reason at all.

>
> >>> The problem, as has been amply demonstrated, is that "ar" takes as a
> >>> basic axiomatic assumption the very thing they must demonstrate, and
> >>> so it fails to demonstrate what it must. "ar" simply *assumes* that
> >>> animals must be shown equal moral consideration, and then invalidly
> >>> demands that opponents show why they shouldn't be. It's a failure.
> >>> "ar" must demonstrate *why* animals must be shown equal moral
> >>> consideration, and to date they've never been able to do so.

>
> >> They never will, because its impossible.

>
> > I believe they can't do it, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
> > However, when one starts by assuming the very thing one must prove, that
> > does nothing at all to advance the cause.

>
> Its physically impossible, the environment around us is thick with animal
> life. The only way to begin to extend consideration is to be selective, say
> by size, and that itself is already speciesist.


Do animals object to the immorality of human kind? and I really did
think when
reading that post that comments like 'the evironment is thick with
animal
life' is tantamount to saying that the person ho wrote it simply has
lost sensitivity
and crucial understanding between living things. Lots of women are
often accused
of not being able to make up her mind! There are lots of small
irrelevent differences
between people who do consider themselves 'racially pure' wouldn't you
agree it
seems to be that if they didn't mix their genes up sometimes then one
disease
or virus could kill all members of the same 'preferential variety'
very soon. Those
tiny differences do matter, but it would be inexact to call them
racial.
  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it



"Neon" > wrote in message
...
> On Apr 10, 6:14 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "George Plimpton" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 4/9/2012 10:59 PM, Dutch wrote:

>>
>> >> "George Plimpton" > wrote
>> >>> On 4/9/2012 9:03 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> >>>> Why *should* humans extend equal moral consideration to non-human
>> >>>> animals? More to the point: why should they be *obliged* to do so?

>>
>> >>>> No reason at all.

>>
>> >>> The problem, as has been amply demonstrated, is that "ar" takes as a
>> >>> basic axiomatic assumption the very thing they must demonstrate, and
>> >>> so it fails to demonstrate what it must. "ar" simply *assumes* that
>> >>> animals must be shown equal moral consideration, and then invalidly
>> >>> demands that opponents show why they shouldn't be. It's a failure.
>> >>> "ar" must demonstrate *why* animals must be shown equal moral
>> >>> consideration, and to date they've never been able to do so.

>>
>> >> They never will, because its impossible.

>>
>> > I believe they can't do it, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
>> > However, when one starts by assuming the very thing one must prove,
>> > that
>> > does nothing at all to advance the cause.

>>
>> Its physically impossible, the environment around us is thick with animal
>> life. The only way to begin to extend consideration is to be selective,
>> say
>> by size, and that itself is already speciesist.

>
> Do animals object to the immorality of human kind? and I really did
> think when
> reading that post that comments like 'the evironment is thick with
> animal
> life' is tantamount to saying that the person ho wrote it simply has
> lost sensitivity
> and crucial understanding between living things. Lots of women are
> often accused
> of not being able to make up her mind! There are lots of small
> irrelevent differences
> between people who do consider themselves 'racially pure' wouldn't you
> agree it
> seems to be that if they didn't mix their genes up sometimes then one
> disease
> or virus could kill all members of the same 'preferential variety'
> very soon. Those
> tiny differences do matter, but it would be inexact to call them
> racial.


I have no idea what you just said.




  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/10/2012 12:26 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
>
> "Neon" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Apr 10, 6:14 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>> "George Plimpton" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On 4/9/2012 10:59 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>> >> "George Plimpton" > wrote
>>> >>> On 4/9/2012 9:03 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> >>>> Why *should* humans extend equal moral consideration to non-human
>>> >>>> animals? More to the point: why should they be *obliged* to do so?
>>>
>>> >>>> No reason at all.
>>>
>>> >>> The problem, as has been amply demonstrated, is that "ar" takes as a
>>> >>> basic axiomatic assumption the very thing they must demonstrate, and
>>> >>> so it fails to demonstrate what it must. "ar" simply *assumes* that
>>> >>> animals must be shown equal moral consideration, and then invalidly
>>> >>> demands that opponents show why they shouldn't be. It's a failure.
>>> >>> "ar" must demonstrate *why* animals must be shown equal moral
>>> >>> consideration, and to date they've never been able to do so.
>>>
>>> >> They never will, because its impossible.
>>>
>>> > I believe they can't do it, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
>>> > However, when one starts by assuming the very thing one must prove,
>>> > that
>>> > does nothing at all to advance the cause.
>>>
>>> Its physically impossible, the environment around us is thick with
>>> animal
>>> life. The only way to begin to extend consideration is to be
>>> selective, say
>>> by size, and that itself is already speciesist.

>>
>> Do animals object to the immorality of human kind? and I really did
>> think when
>> reading that post that comments like 'the evironment is thick with
>> animal
>> life' is tantamount to saying that the person ho wrote it simply has
>> lost sensitivity
>> and crucial understanding between living things. Lots of women are
>> often accused
>> of not being able to make up her mind! There are lots of small
>> irrelevent differences
>> between people who do consider themselves 'racially pure' wouldn't you
>> agree it
>> seems to be that if they didn't mix their genes up sometimes then one
>> disease
>> or virus could kill all members of the same 'preferential variety'
>> very soon. Those
>> tiny differences do matter, but it would be inexact to call them
>> racial.

>
> I have no idea what you just said.


I have no doubt - truly *zero* doubt - that he read the post in, and
then posted his reply to, alt.philosophy. His writing style is the norm
there - dense, turgid, impenetrable sophism. You'd probably have better
luck trying to read a translation of Nietzsche into Swahili.
  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 10, 3:50*pm, George Plimpton > 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.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> 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. But I wanted to
give you a chance to state the argument in its strongest form.

> >> 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.

>
> > It would probably do both.

>
> No.
>
> >> You just don't have a sound argument against "speciesism".

>
> > The burden of proof is on the *defender* of speciesism.

>
> The burden of proof is on the "ar" extremists who claim non-human
> animals deserve equal moral consideration.


Wrong. If you think that you belong to a special group whose interests
deserve more consideration than those of other groups, the burden is
on you to explain why.
  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

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.


>>>> 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.

>>
>>> It would probably do both.

>>
>> No.
>>
>>>> You just don't have a sound argument against "speciesism".

>>
>>> The burden of proof is on the *defender* of speciesism.

>>
>> The burden of proof is on the "ar" extremists who claim non-human
>> animals deserve equal moral consideration.

>
> Wrong. If you think that you belong to a special group whose interests
> deserve more consideration than those of other groups, the burden is
> on you to explain why.


Nope. As the overwhelming majority - 99% + - of people believe that it
is correct to give more consideration to the interests of members of
their species than to members of other species, you're going to have to
make a case for why they're wrong. The burden is on you. The
presumption that our interests should receive greater consideration is
the champion; your position is the challenger. The challenger must
defeat the champion, or the champion remains champion by default.
That's how it works.

The burden is on you, and you can't meet it - you merely assume the very
thing you must demonstrate. You lose.
  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

I am convinced that both the notion of rights, and a *conscious* sense
of consideration of others' interests, are products of human evolution
that had the effect of ensuring the survival of the species. As such,
there is no valid philosophical reason either one *ought* to be extended
to animals. As both evolved as part of our - humans' - survival
"strategy", there is no compelling philosophical reason to extend them
to animals, *unless* doing so would enhance our survival. I don't
believe a compelling case can be made for either one - neither seeing
animals as rights holders, nor giving their interests equal
consideration to ours, would do a thing to enhance either the
probability or the quality of continued human existence.
  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default Why (partially) the argument from marginal cases fails

Humans, except for marginal cases themselves, feel sorrow when
contemplating a marginal case. If a friend or family member experiences
a trauma or illness that puts him permanently into a vegetative state or
another severely diminished capacity, humans feel terrible about it, and
the feeling doesn't go away.

No one looks at or in any way contemplates pigs and feels bad that they
can't read or do arithmetic, can't appreciate classical music, can't
tell or understand jokes. It doesn't mean anything - no moral or
philosophical or emotional dimension to it at all. There *is* a moral
and philosophical and especially an emotional dimension to our awareness
that marginal humans cannot fully participate in human society and
culture. We feel there is something *wrong*, something *bad*, if humans
suffer from a diminished capacity that prevents them from participating
fully in the human community, but we don't feel anything at all like
that about *all* non-human animals lacking that capacity; nor *should*
we feel the same way about animals lacking that capacity. Their
diminished capacity, relative to ours, has no meaning for any of them,
and there is no reason for it to have any meaning for us, so it has no
meaning.

The contrast between our innate sense of compassion for marginal or
diminished-capacity humans, and our utter lack of compassion or sorrow
over animals' similar lack of capacity, illustrates why the AMC fails.
A normal pig's lack of normal human mental, emotional and moral capacity
elicits no feelings in us at all, nor should it; a human who permanently
lacks normal human mental, emotional and moral capacity is seen as a
tragedy, and it is *right* that he is seen as such.


  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 11, 2:16*am, George Plimpton > 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?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> 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.

>
> >>> It would probably do both.

>
> >> No.

>
> >>>> You just don't have a sound argument against "speciesism".

>
> >>> The burden of proof is on the *defender* of speciesism.

>
> >> The burden of proof is on the "ar" extremists who claim non-human
> >> animals deserve equal moral consideration.

>
> > Wrong. If you think that you belong to a special group whose interests
> > deserve more consideration than those of other groups, the burden is
> > on you to explain why.

>
> Nope. *As the overwhelming majority - 99% + - of people believe that it
> is correct to give more consideration to the interests of members of
> their species than to members of other species, you're going to have to
> make a case for why they're wrong. *The burden is on you. *The
> presumption that our interests should receive greater consideration is
> the champion; your position is the challenger. *The challenger must
> defeat the champion, or the champion remains champion by default.
> That's how it works.
>


No. There is a default presumption of equal consideration of interests
in ethics. If someone believes that they are a member of a special
group whose interests are entitled to more consideration the burden is
on them to establish that.

> The burden is on you, and you can't meet it - you merely assume the very
> thing you must demonstrate. *You lose.


  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

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.


>>>>>> 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.

>>
>>>>> It would probably do both.

>>
>>>> No.

>>
>>>>>> You just don't have a sound argument against "speciesism".

>>
>>>>> The burden of proof is on the *defender* of speciesism.

>>
>>>> The burden of proof is on the "ar" extremists who claim non-human
>>>> animals deserve equal moral consideration.

>>
>>> Wrong. If you think that you belong to a special group whose interests
>>> deserve more consideration than those of other groups, the burden is
>>> on you to explain why.

>>
>> Nope. As the overwhelming majority - 99% + - of people believe that it
>> is correct to give more consideration to the interests of members of
>> their species than to members of other species, you're going to have to
>> make a case for why they're wrong. The burden is on you. The
>> presumption that our interests should receive greater consideration is
>> the champion; your position is the challenger. The challenger must
>> defeat the champion, or the champion remains champion by default.
>> That's how it works.
>>

>
> No.


Yes.


> There is a default presumption of equal consideration of interests
> in ethics.


For humans.
  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 10, 7:26*pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Neon" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 10, 6:14 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "George Plimpton" > wrote in message

>
> om...

>
> >> > On 4/9/2012 10:59 PM, Dutch wrote:

>
> >> >> "George Plimpton" > wrote
> >> >>> On 4/9/2012 9:03 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
> >> >>>> Why *should* humans extend equal moral consideration to non-human
> >> >>>> animals? More to the point: why should they be *obliged* to do so?

>
> >> >>>> No reason at all.

>
> >> >>> The problem, as has been amply demonstrated, is that "ar" takes as a
> >> >>> basic axiomatic assumption the very thing they must demonstrate, and
> >> >>> so it fails to demonstrate what it must. "ar" simply *assumes* that
> >> >>> animals must be shown equal moral consideration, and then invalidly
> >> >>> demands that opponents show why they shouldn't be. It's a failure.
> >> >>> "ar" must demonstrate *why* animals must be shown equal moral
> >> >>> consideration, and to date they've never been able to do so.

>
> >> >> They never will, because its impossible.

>
> >> > I believe they can't do it, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
> >> > However, when one starts by assuming the very thing one must prove,
> >> > that
> >> > does nothing at all to advance the cause.

>
> >> Its physically impossible, the environment around us is thick with animal
> >> life. The only way to begin to extend consideration is to be selective,
> >> say
> >> by size, and that itself is already speciesist.

>
> > Do animals object to the immorality of human kind? and I really did
> > think when
> > reading that post that comments like 'the evironment is thick with
> > animal
> > life' is tantamount to saying that the person ho wrote it simply has
> > lost sensitivity
> > and crucial understanding between living things. Lots of women are
> > often accused
> > of not being able to make up her mind! *There are lots of small
> > irrelevent differences
> > between people who do consider themselves 'racially pure' wouldn't you
> > agree it
> > seems to be that if they didn't mix their genes up sometimes then one
> > disease
> > or virus could kill all members of the same 'preferential variety'
> > very soon. Those
> > tiny differences do matter, but it would be inexact to call them
> > racial.

>
> I have no idea what you just said.


you answer correctly !
  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

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?
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> 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.

>>
>>>>> It would probably do both.

>>
>>>> No.

>>
>>>>>> You just don't have a sound argument against "speciesism".

>>
>>>>> The burden of proof is on the *defender* of speciesism.

>>
>>>> The burden of proof is on the "ar" extremists who claim non-human
>>>> animals deserve equal moral consideration.

>>
>>> Wrong. If you think that you belong to a special group whose interests
>>> deserve more consideration than those of other groups, the burden is
>>> on you to explain why.

>>
>> Nope. As the overwhelming majority - 99% + - of people believe that it
>> is correct to give more consideration to the interests of members of
>> their species than to members of other species, you're going to have to
>> make a case for why they're wrong. The burden is on you. The
>> presumption that our interests should receive greater consideration is
>> the champion; your position is the challenger. The challenger must
>> defeat the champion, or the champion remains champion by default.
>> That's how it works.
>>

>
> No. There is a default presumption of equal consideration of interests
> in ethics.


Who says so? Peter Singer? That's a position he advocates polemically.
How does he show that it ought to be considered the default? Who
agrees with him? Not Bonnie Steinbock.


> If someone believes that they are a member of a special
> group whose interests are entitled to more consideration the burden is
> on them to establish that.
>
>> The burden is on you, and you can't meet it - you merely assume the very
>> thing you must demonstrate. You lose.

>


  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:37:10 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Apr 9, 10:54*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 10:06:34 -0700, 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.

>>
>> * * That's for sure. If humans were not speciesist we could no longer survive
>> since rodents, bugs and germs would eventually wipe us out. Early humans also
>> would not have been able to defend themselves from predators if they didn't care
>> more for themselves than they do for the predators.
>> . . .
>>
>> >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.

>>
>> * * Someone who honestly felt that way would be insane and a danger to society.
>> They would feel no worse about hitting a child with their car than they would a
>> snake, which would truly be insane from my pov.

>
>That does not follow.


That it would be insane from my pov? Or that if they were not speciesist it
would apply to snakes as well as to whatever else, if anything, or
everything...?


  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 11, 6:27*pm, Donn Messenheimer >
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?

>
> >>>>>> 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.

>
> >>>>> It would probably do both.

>
> >>>> No.

>
> >>>>>> You just don't have a sound argument against "speciesism".

>
> >>>>> The burden of proof is on the *defender* of speciesism.

>
> >>>> The burden of proof is on the "ar" extremists who claim non-human
> >>>> animals deserve equal moral consideration.

>
> >>> Wrong. If you think that you belong to a special group whose interests
> >>> deserve more consideration than those of other groups, the burden is
> >>> on you to explain why.

>
> >> Nope. *As the overwhelming majority - 99% + - of people believe that it
> >> is correct to give more consideration to the interests of members of
> >> their species than to members of other species, you're going to have to
> >> make a case for why they're wrong. *The burden is on you. *The
> >> presumption that our interests should receive greater consideration is
> >> the champion; your position is the challenger. *The challenger must
> >> defeat the champion, or the champion remains champion by default.
> >> That's how it works.

>
> > No. There is a default presumption of equal consideration of interests
> > in ethics.

>
> Who says so? *Peter Singer?


Peter Singer, and most other ethicists, whether they be in favour of
speciesism or no.

> *That's a position he advocates polemically.
> * How does he show that it ought to be considered the default? *Who
> agrees with him? *Not Bonnie Steinbock.
>


Most ethicists would agree that equal consideration of interests is
the default starting position.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> > If someone believes that they are a member of a special
> > group whose interests are entitled to more consideration the burden is
> > on them to establish that.

>
> >> The burden is on you, and you can't meet it - you merely assume the very
> >> thing you must demonstrate. *You lose.


  #37 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 11, 8:51*am, George Plimpton > 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"?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>> 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.

>
> >>>>> It would probably do both.

>
> >>>> No.

>
> >>>>>> You just don't have a sound argument against "speciesism".

>
> >>>>> The burden of proof is on the *defender* of speciesism.

>
> >>>> The burden of proof is on the "ar" extremists who claim non-human
> >>>> animals deserve equal moral consideration.

>
> >>> Wrong. If you think that you belong to a special group whose interests
> >>> deserve more consideration than those of other groups, the burden is
> >>> on you to explain why.

>
> >> Nope. *As the overwhelming majority - 99% + - of people believe that it
> >> is correct to give more consideration to the interests of members of
> >> their species than to members of other species, you're going to have to
> >> make a case for why they're wrong. *The burden is on you. *The
> >> presumption that our interests should receive greater consideration is
> >> the champion; your position is the challenger. *The challenger must
> >> defeat the champion, or the champion remains champion by default.
> >> That's how it works.

>
> > No.

>
> Yes.
>
> > There is a default presumption of equal consideration of interests
> > in ethics.

>
> For humans.


  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/11/2012 10:40 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 11, 6:27 pm, Donn >
> 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?

>>
>>>>>>>> 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.

>>
>>>>>>> It would probably do both.

>>
>>>>>> No.

>>
>>>>>>>> You just don't have a sound argument against "speciesism".

>>
>>>>>>> The burden of proof is on the *defender* of speciesism.

>>
>>>>>> The burden of proof is on the "ar" extremists who claim non-human
>>>>>> animals deserve equal moral consideration.

>>
>>>>> Wrong. If you think that you belong to a special group whose interests
>>>>> deserve more consideration than those of other groups, the burden is
>>>>> on you to explain why.

>>
>>>> Nope. As the overwhelming majority - 99% + - of people believe that it
>>>> is correct to give more consideration to the interests of members of
>>>> their species than to members of other species, you're going to have to
>>>> make a case for why they're wrong. The burden is on you. The
>>>> presumption that our interests should receive greater consideration is
>>>> the champion; your position is the challenger. The challenger must
>>>> defeat the champion, or the champion remains champion by default.
>>>> That's how it works.

>>
>>> No. There is a default presumption of equal consideration of interests
>>> in ethics.

>>
>> Who says so? Peter Singer?

>
> Peter Singer, and most other ethicists, whether they be in favour of
> speciesism or no.
>
>> That's a position he advocates polemically.
>> How does he show that it ought to be considered the default? Who
>> agrees with him? Not Bonnie Steinbock.
>>

>
> Most ethicists would agree that equal consideration of interests is
> the default starting position.


I don't believe you.
  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

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.

It is not membership /per se/ in the class of beings who as a matter of
species normality have the morally relevant trait that leads us to
include marginal humans and exclude all other animals; it is the
*meaning* of it, which is the potentiality to exercising those faculties.

There's another reason why the two marginal cases - freak-intelligent
chimp, comatose human - are not symmetric: we observe plenty of
marginal humans, most of whom develop or recover their faculty for moral
agency, but we have never observed a chimpanzee who can do mathematics
at a level that he ought to earn university admission, nor does anyone
reasonably expect we ever will.
  #40 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

"Rupert" > wrote
> Most ethicists would agree that equal consideration of interests is
> the default starting position.


For whom? My default starting position for consideration is my own
interests, followed by my immediate family including my pets, my community,
my country, mankind, higher level animals, rare plant species, lower level
animals, the planet, and the economy is implied in there somewhere.

The default starting position for every organism in existence is its own
interests, that is the way the world works.





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 12:46 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"