"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

[notg...@yahoo.com]

"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.

[Rupert]

On Apr 8, 7:06 pm, notgen...@yahoo.com 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.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/8/2012 9:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 8, 7:06 pm, notgen...@yahoo.com 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.

[Rupert]

On Apr 9, 6:44 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 4/8/2012 9:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Apr 8, 7:06 pm, notgen...@yahoo.com 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?

[Dutch]

"Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote

> On Apr 9, 6:44 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> "marginal cases" doesn't work. It's useless.
>>
>
> Why not?

You know why not.

[Zerkon]

In article <yt6dnYnAlbcGWBzS...@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.

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.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/8/2012 11:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 9, 6:44 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 4/8/2012 9:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 8, 7:06 pm, notgen...@yahoo.com 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.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/9/2012 5:05 AM, Zerkon wrote:
> In article<yt6dnYnAlbcGWBzS...@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.

[George Plimpton]

He does indeed know why not. He knows that it's sophistry to begin
with, and he knows exactly why.

[Rupert]

On Apr 9, 4:31 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 4/8/2012 11:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 9, 6:44 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >> On 4/8/2012 9:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 8, 7:06 pm, notgen...@yahoo.com 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.

[George Plimpton]

That's not what you're doing.

No, it isn't. It fully defeats the fake argument from marginal cases.

[Rupert]

Why not?

Wrong.

[n.keele]

On Apr 8, 5:06 pm, notgen...@yahoo.com 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?

[George Plimpton]

You tell us what your motive is.

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/.

[dh]

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 10:06:34 -0700, notg...@yahoo.com 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.

[George Plimpton]

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.

[George Plimpton]

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.

[Dutch]

"George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote

They never will, because its impossible.

[George Plimpton]

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.

[Dutch]

"George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
news:dpOdna5Di_pdUB7S...@giganews.com...

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.

[Rupert]

I don't understand this.

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.

[Rupert]

On Apr 9, 10:54 pm, dh@. wrote:

That does not follow.

[George Plimpton]

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.

[Neon]

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.

[Dutch]

"Neon" <Neon_...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c762220a-b63b-41b5...@dc2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

I have no idea what you just said.

[George Plimpton]

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.

[Rupert]

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

[George Plimpton]

Yes, you do.

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.

[George Plimpton]

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.

[George Plimpton]

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.

[Rupert]

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.

[George Plimpton]

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.

[Neon]

On Apr 10, 7:26 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> "Neon" <Neon_Ki...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message

you answer correctly !

[Donn Messenheimer]

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.

[dh]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:37:10 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

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...?

[Rupert]

On Apr 11, 6:27 pm, Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org>
wrote:

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.

[Donn Messenheimer]

I don't believe you.

[Rupert]

What do you mean by "potentiality"?

[George Plimpton]

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.

[Dutch]

"Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> 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.

[George Plimpton]

That's right, and even when considering others' interests, one is still
considering one's own, and that's going to affect how you weight the
interests of others. I consider my son's interests ahead of my wife's,
my wife's ahead of my friends', my friends' ahead of my neighbors', and
so on. There comes a point at which I would consider my dog's interests
ahead of some humans' interests. If I have $100 and am faced with a
choice of taking my dog to the vet because she's ill, or donating to the
Haitian earthquake relief fund, I can tell you the Haitians are going to
be $100 short.

[Rupert]

Again: what do you *mean* by "potential"?

[Rupert]

On Apr 11, 7:55 pm, Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org>

I'll see if I can find some references for you. I've asked a friend
who is doing a PhD in metaethics.

[George Plimpton]

Stop wasting time. It's not a difficult word, and English is your
native language.

[Rupert]

On Apr 12, 12:23 am, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote

That is something that requires defence from the moral point of view.

[George Plimpton]

Why?

[Dutch]

"Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:47b81989-95f9-4fa3...@z3g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...

You mean like you defended your assertion, by claiming that most ethicists
agree with you? Well I can't honestly say I've ever met an ethicist, but if
they think that way then they are different than every other person or
animal that I am aware of. No, you're wrong here, in fact your description
of your own moral calculations proves it. You have admitted that adjusting
your lifestyle to avoid causing harm to animals is secondary to maintaining
a suitable career and lifestyle for yourself, as it should be. I don't know
if you have ever see the comic Louis C.K. but he does a bit about his
beliefs about what is right, like signing an organ donor card, he thinks
that everyone should do that, to save lives. But he doesn't do it himself
because he thinks its gross. He calls these beliefs "his believies", things
that he believes in as part of his self-image but doesn't follow through on.
He is describing you, your belief that equal consideration of interests is
the default starting position is one of your "believies".

[George Plimpton]

On 4/11/2012 11:29 PM, Dutch wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:47b81989-95f9-4fa3...@z3g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 12, 12:23 am, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> 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.
>>
>> That is something that requires defence from the moral point of view.
>
> You mean like you defended your assertion, by claiming that most
> ethicists agree with you? Well I can't honestly say I've ever met an
> ethicist,

nor has Woopert...

> but if they think that way then they are different than every
> other person or animal that I am aware of. No, you're wrong here, in
> fact your description of your own moral calculations proves it. You have
> admitted that adjusting your lifestyle to avoid causing harm to animals
> is secondary to maintaining a suitable career and lifestyle for
> yourself, as it should be.

Exactly. Woopert essentially has refused to make any alteration in his
life *whatever* to attempt to give equal consideration to the interests
of animals. I have long maintained that this is a fundamental flaw in
the belief system itself, rather than a flaw in its adherents, if not
*one* of them can be bothered to try to live fully up to its moral
prescriptions.

> I don't know if you have ever see the comic
> Louis C.K. but he does a bit about his beliefs about what is right, like
> signing an organ donor card, he thinks that everyone should do that, to
> save lives. But he doesn't do it himself because he thinks its gross. He
> calls these beliefs "his believies", things that he believes in as part
> of his self-image but doesn't follow through on.

That is brilliant! I'll have to see if I can find anything on it in
YouTube.

Years ago I read of something called The Garbage Project. It's a
long-running academic study at one of the Arizona universities - I can't
recall if it's U of A in Tucson or Arizona State U in Tempe - in which
they analyze human refuse, including human behavior with respect to the
generation and handling of it. One of the things they found is that
with most people, they claim that they recycle far more than they really
do. In surveys, people would report that they recycled heavily while
their neighbors didn't recycle much at all, but what the surveyors found
is that people recycle about as much as what they say their neighbors
do, on average. I think a lot of analysis of virtue would turn up
similar results. That, among other reasons, is why I don't believe
Fuckwit when he says he only buys "cage-free" eggs.

> He is describing you,
> your belief that equal consideration of interests is the default
> starting position is one of your "believies".

Right.

[Immortalist]

On Apr 8, 10:06 am, notgen...@yahoo.com 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."
>

> 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.

Speciesism is the idea that being human is a good enough reason for
human animals to have greater moral rights than non-human animals. It
is a prejudice or bias in favour of the interests of members of one's
own species and against those of members of other species.

Pure speciesism carries the idea of human superiority to the extreme
of saying that the most trivial human wish is more important that the
vital needs of other species... for example a pure speciesist would
argue that it's ok for animals to be cruelly treated and killed to
provide fur decorations for human beings to wear.

Supporters of speciesism say that there is a clear difference between
humans and other species, and that this difference affects their moral
status.

They argue that human beings are more self-aware, and more able to
choose their own course of action than other animals. This, they say,
enables them to think and act morally, and so entitles them to a
higher moral status.

But the argument that there are morally relevant differences between
human animals and non-human animals is not a speciesist argument,
since the argument is about the particular characteristics that are
being put forward to justify the different moral status of human and
non-human animals.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/rights/speciesism.shtml

[George Plimpton]

On 4/12/2012 7:27 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 4/11/2012 11:29 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> "Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:47b81989-95f9-4fa3...@z3g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Apr 12, 12:23 am, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> 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

>>>> owninterests, that is the way the world works.

>>>
>>> That is something that requires defence from the moral point of view.
>>
>> You mean like you defended your assertion, by claiming that most
>> ethicists agree with you? Well I can't honestly say I've ever met an
>> ethicist,
>
> nor has Woopert...

I should have elaborated in my original reply that it's a sick joke for
Woopert to be saying that the "default position" in ethics is to give
equal consideration to the interests of any suffering-capable entity.
First of all, I don't believe Woopert has studied ethics rigorously at
all, let alone to a degree that would permit him to say with such
comical "authority" what the consensus position among ethicists is.
Second, it is completely obvious, due to the amount of controversy
surrounding it, that Singer's position is distinctly a minority view.
With as much controversy over it as there clearly is, I find it very
hard to believe it's the "default" or consensus view of ethics. Rather,
it's what Singer - and Woopert - would *want* to be the default view.
That's why I maintain they are the ones with the burden of proof: given
that most ethicists (or so I intuitively believe) and the overwhelming
majority of humans do *not* accept it as the default, the burden clearly
is on them.

Carl Cohen said something in "The Animal Rights Debate" that has stuck
with me. He wrote that when there is a huge majority holding a
particular moral intuition, the overwhelming size of that majority gives
it a particular weight that cannot simply be casually brushed away. It
doesn't mean it's necessarily a correct intuition, but there's a
presumption. Now, both the human concept of ethics, and ethics as a
distinct branch of philosophy, have been around literally for millennia.
With all that, the overwhelming majority of humans still consider it
morally acceptable to give less weight to the interests of animals than
to human interests, while at the same time most humans feel that *some*
weight should be given to animals' interests, so it's not as if their
moral intuition simply treats animals as holding no morally considerable
interests at all. However imperfectly people may have thought this
through, they have given thought to it, and concluded that animals'
interests deserve less moral consideration than humans'.

The Humane Society of the US (HSUS) says that 39% of US households own
at least one dog, and 33% of households own at least one cat
(interestingly, there are about 8 million more owned cats in the US than
owned dogs, so many more households have multiple cats than multiple
dogs.)
http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/pet_overpopulation/facts/pet_ownership_statistics.html
A pet products professional association gives about the same number of
owned cats and dogs, but says the percentage of households owning one or
the other is higher
http://www.americanpetproducts.org/press_industrytrends.asp Most US
households are comprised of more than one person, so it's very likely
that more than 50% of Americans have a dog or a cat or both. I think
most people give a fair amount of consideration to the interests of
their animals. They spend over $50 billion a year on them, including
almost $13.5 billion on medical care. If people didn't give
considerable weight to the interests of these animals, they wouldn't
spend nearly as much.

Woopert and his corrupt pal Singer are going to have to do a lot of work
to convince people they ought to be providing the same amount of medical
care and same quality of food to their animals as they provide for
themselves. The "ar"/"al" radicals have the burden of proof. As you
say, most of their so-called ethics with regard to animals seems to be
"believies".

[George Plimpton]

That's the revolting neologism given as a name for that belief. It's
truly a disgusting word, so much so that every spell-checker I've seen
rejects it as a word.

> Pure speciesism carries the idea of human superiority to the extreme
> of saying that the most trivial human wish is more important that the
> vital needs of other species... for example a pure speciesist would
> argue that it's ok for animals to be cruelly treated and killed to
> provide fur decorations for human beings to wear.
>
> Supporters of speciesism say that there is a clear difference between
> humans and other species, and that this difference affects their moral
> status.
>
> They argue that human beings are more self-aware, and more able to
> choose their own course of action than other animals. This, they say,
> enables them to think and act morally, and so entitles them to a
> higher moral status.
>
> But the argument that there are morally relevant differences between
> human animals and non-human animals is not a speciesist argument,
> since the argument is about the particular characteristics that are
> being put forward to justify the different moral status of human and
> non-human animals.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/rights/speciesism.shtml

So, you tiresomely copied and pasted this boilerplate without adding any
commentary of your own. What the fuck for?

[Rupert]

It is not plausible that all humans have the potential to be moral
agents.

[Rupert]

He agrees with me that it is the majority view among ethicists.

He wasn't sure about references but he mentioned this paper:

http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/singer.pdf

[Rupert]

Because the interests of other organisms are equally important from
the moral point of view, and you must offer reasons for favouring your
own.

[Rupert]

On Apr 12, 4:27 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 4/11/2012 11:29 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

That is quite obvious nonsense.

[Rupert]

On Apr 12, 5:41 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 4/12/2012 7:27 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4/11/2012 11:29 PM, Dutch wrote:

> >> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> dogs.)http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/pet_overpopulation/facts/pet_owne...

>   A pet products professional association gives about the same number of
> owned cats and dogs, but says the percentage of households owning one or

> the other is higherhttp://www.americanpetproducts.org/press_industrytrends.asp  Most US

> households are comprised of more than one person, so it's very likely
> that more than 50% of Americans have a dog or a cat or both.  I think
> most people give a fair amount of consideration to the interests of
> their animals.  They spend over $50 billion a year on them, including
> almost $13.5 billion on medical care.  If people didn't give
> considerable weight to the interests of these animals, they wouldn't
> spend nearly as much.
>
> Woopert and his corrupt pal Singer are going to have to do a lot of work
> to convince people they ought to be providing the same amount of medical
> care and same quality of food to their animals as they provide for
> themselves.

That does not follow from the principle of equal consideration of
interests.

[Rupert]

On Apr 12, 8:29 am, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

I don't see why my behaviour is inconsistent with equal consideration.

[Immortalist]

Some humans observe that there are a number of apparent differences
between themselves and other beings. This observation alone hardly
justifies any actions involving beings unless combined with other
proposals and justifications.

Your theory of the revoltingness doesn't do the thing either idiot.

>
>
>
>
> > Pure speciesism carries the idea of human superiority to the extreme
> > of saying that the most trivial human wish is more important that the
> > vital needs of other species... for example a pure speciesist would
> > argue that it's ok for animals to be cruelly treated and killed to
> > provide fur decorations for human beings to wear.
>
> > Supporters of speciesism say that there is a clear difference between
> > humans and other species, and that this difference affects their moral
> > status.
>
> > They argue that human beings are more self-aware, and more able to
> > choose their own course of action than other animals. This, they say,
> > enables them to think and act morally, and so entitles them to a
> > higher moral status.
>
> > But the argument that there are morally relevant differences between
> > human animals and non-human animals is not a speciesist argument,
> > since the argument is about the particular characteristics that are
> > being put forward to justify the different moral status of human and
> > non-human animals.
>
> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/rights/speciesism.shtml
>
> So, you tiresomely copied and pasted this boilerplate without adding any
> commentary of your own.  What the fuck for?

You are proposing that only commentary is allowable, please give
reasons for your theory.

[George Plimpton]

/ex ante/, all humans do have that potential. /ex post/ we see that the
actuality is some humans have diminished capacity that prevents them
from attaining the normal human potential.

[George Plimpton]

That's the assertion you must prove, but have to date not even attempted
to prove.

[George Plimpton]

No, it's quite obviously true because *you* told us, explicitly. You
said that you can't - actually, won't - do all that you might do to
ensure you are giving the same consideration to animals' interests that
you give to humans'. You said you "needed" to do things to advance your
career that prevent you from determining which foods produce the least harm.

[George Plimpton]

It follows from the fact that your position is distinctly a minority
position that has been implicitly reject by the vast majority of humanity.

[George Plimpton]

Really! How...insightful <chortle>.

> This observation alone hardly
> justifies any actions involving beings unless combined with other
> proposals and justifications.

Uhh...er...okay.

>
> Your theory of the revoltingness doesn't do the thing either idiot.

Do what thing, fucktard?

>>
>>
>>> Pure speciesism carries the idea of human superiority to the extreme
>>> of saying that the most trivial human wish is more important that the
>>> vital needs of other species... for example a pure speciesist would
>>> argue that it's ok for animals to be cruelly treated and killed to
>>> provide fur decorations for human beings to wear.
>>
>>> Supporters of speciesism say that there is a clear difference between
>>> humans and other species, and that this difference affects their moral
>>> status.
>>
>>> They argue that human beings are more self-aware, and more able to
>>> choose their own course of action than other animals. This, they say,
>>> enables them to think and act morally, and so entitles them to a
>>> higher moral status.
>>
>>> But the argument that there are morally relevant differences between
>>> human animals and non-human animals is not a speciesist argument,
>>> since the argument is about the particular characteristics that are
>>> being put forward to justify the different moral status of human and
>>> non-human animals.
>>
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/rights/speciesism.shtml
>>
>> So, you tiresomely copied and pasted this boilerplate without adding any
>> commentary of your own. What the fuck for?
>
> You are proposing that only commentary is allowable, please give
> reasons for your theory.

No, I'm not proposing that only commentary is allowable, you tendentious
pedantic fuckwit. I'm saying that only doing slavish copypasta isn't
very interesting or helpful.

[Immortalist]

Yes, kinda like Descartes argument "I think therefore I exist" except
here the argument is "there are differences between beings therefore
different beings should be treated differently."

> > This observation alone hardly
> > justifies any actions involving beings unless combined with other
> > proposals and justifications.
>
> Uhh...er...okay.
>
>
>
> > Your theory of the revoltingness doesn't do the thing either idiot.
>
> Do what thing, fucktard?
>

The 'do the thing' phrase in my response referred to any attempt to
justify behavior that would be identical to either treating different
beings differently or treating different beings the same. In either
case we would need additional reasons to justify the longstanding
traditions of the way beings have treated or are treated by other
beings. It will do no good to appeal to tradition or evolution as ways
to justify the preponderance of a range of and the prescription of any
treatments. This will not be allowed since it is analogous to claiming
the 2+2=4 not because of any theories of addition and sums but simply
because thats what 2+2 always equalled traditionally.

Are you requesting that the topic be changed to the interesting and
helpful or is this another red herring fallacious distration where an
irrelevant issue is introduced to take attention away from you weak
arguing abilities?

[George Plimpton]

Crikey, you are one long-winded wheezy bastard, aren't you?

In fact, I don't appeal to tradition to justify humans considering
animals' interests differently from how they consider humans' interests.
What I *do* say is that given that humans overwhelmingly *do* give
differential consideration to humans' and animals' interests, and given
that this is based on at least a moral intuition on humans' part that
the difference is morally warranted, it simply isn't going to do for a
challenger position such as Woopert's and Singer's to try to shift the
burden.

It's neither - it's just a well-aimed criticism of you as a wheezy
tendentious pedant.

[Dutch]

"George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote

> That is brilliant! I'll have to see if I can find anything on it in
> YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FbnJ-nvUSA&feature=youtube_gdata

[Dutch]

"Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote

> I don't see why my behaviour is inconsistent with equal consideration.

You have based your lifestyle on having a job and an urban apartment near
shops and all that so that you can pursue your career and other personal
interests in a reasonable fashion. That means your default consideration is
yourself, as it must be. From that you presumably have made adjustments and
sacrifices to satisfy your desire to reduce suffering to animals, reduce air
pollution, help the homeless, or whatever else you think is important. But
your consideration to these goals is not equal to the consideration you give
to your own interests, it can't be. You couldn't possibly give equal
consideration to all other entities with interests, much less those who are
in need, or even those you are aware of. It's not possible. You can do *a
few* things, that's all. That's all anyone could expect you to do.

[Rupert]

Why?

> /ex post/ we see that the
> actuality is some humans have diminished capacity that prevents them
> from attaining the normal human potential.

Quite.

[Rupert]

The burden of proof is on someone who says that the interests of a
particular class of organisms deserve special consideration.

[Rupert]

No, it doesn't.

[Rupert]

On Apr 13, 12:00 am, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote

I never said you weren't allowed to give special priority to your own
interests, I said that was something that required a justification.

[Dutch]

"Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote

What is your justification for the special consideration you give to your
own interests?

[Rupert]

I am giving the same consideration to animals' interests that I give
to humans', I would behave the same way if the victims were human.

[George Plimpton]

Fuck off, time-waster.

[George Plimpton]

The burden of proof is on you limp challengers.

[George Plimpton]

It does.

[George Plimpton]

You aren't.

[Rupert]

Well, it just degenerates into an exchange of contrary assertions
about who has the burden of proof, which is not very interesting.

In the actual historical situation of challenging the once widely held
belief that negroes were entitled to less moral consideration, how
would you say the burden of proof was met on that occasion?

[Rupert]

> >>>> the other is higherhttp://www.americanpetproducts.org/press_industrytrends.aspMost US

> >>>> households are comprised of more than one person, so it's very likely
> >>>> that more than 50% of Americans have a dog or a cat or both.  I think
> >>>> most people give a fair amount of consideration to the interests of
> >>>> their animals.  They spend over $50 billion a year on them, including
> >>>> almost $13.5 billion on medical care.  If people didn't give
> >>>> considerable weight to the interests of these animals, they wouldn't
> >>>> spend nearly as much.
>
> >>>> Woopert and his corrupt pal Singer are going to have to do a lot of work
> >>>> to convince people they ought to be providing the same amount of medical
> >>>> care and same quality of food to their animals as they provide for
> >>>> themselves.
>
> >>> That does not follow from the principle of equal consideration of
> >>> interests.
>
> >> It follows from the fact that your position is distinctly a minority
> >> position that has been implicitly reject by the vast majority of humanity.
>
> > No, it doesn't.
>
> It does.

When I wrote "That does not follow from the principle of equal
consideration of interests", the "that" obviously refers to the
statement that "people ought to be providing the same amount of
medical care and the same quality of food to their animals as they
provide for themselves".

So what you are saying is "From the fact that your position is
distinctly a minority position that has been implicitly rejected by
the vast majority of humanity, it follows that people ought to be
providing the same amount of medical care and the same quality of food

to their animals as they provide for themselves."

This is what happens when you don't read the posts to which you are
responding properly.

[Rupert]

Why do you think that?

[George Plimpton]

You have claimed not only that the burden of proof in terms of
justifying "speciesism" is on those who rely on it, but also that it is
the consensus of ethicists that equal consideration is due
suffering-capable entities regardless of species. You keep piling up
the burdens of proof that you then shirk.

[George Plimpton]

I don't care about that. I reject that principle, and I don't believe
you that "equal consideration" across species is the default position of
ethics. You're bullshitting.

[George Plimpton]

You've told us.

[Rupert]

Yes, I have claimed that, and I have also claimed that most ethicists
agree on this point, and my friend who is a PhD student in metaethics
agrees with me.

> You keep piling up
> the burdens of proof that you then shirk.

What do you want me to try to prove?

[Rupert]

When did I tell you that?

[George Plimpton]

You're full of shit on that point.

>> You keep piling up
>> the burdens of proof that you then shirk.
>
> What do you want me to try to prove?

All of it.

[Rupert]

You think it's a waste of time to try to defend your position?

[Rupert]

You ought to care about what you are saying, otherwise people will get
the idea that you are a fool who babbles nonsense without rhyme or
reason.

> I reject that principle, and I don't believe
> you that "equal consideration" across species is the default position of
> ethics.  You're bullshitting.

Yes, I am certainly aware that you reject the principle.

You probably believe in some sort of equal consideration for humans
though, don't you? Would you be able to tell us more about that?

[Rupert]

Well, my friend who is doing a PhD in metaethics doesn't think so, and
it might be fair to say that he would be in a better position to know
than you.

> >> You keep piling up
> >> the burdens of proof that you then shirk.
>
> > What do you want me to try to prove?
>
> All of it.

All of what?

[George Plimpton]

Several times over the last couple of years.

[George Plimpton]

The attempted time wasting is when you bitchily demand that I explain
what I've already explained many times.

[George Plimpton]

Your "ara" radical pal is a lying partisan.

>>>> You keep piling up
>>>> the burdens of proof that you then shirk.
>>
>>> What do you want me to try to prove?
>>
>> All of it.
>
> All of what?

All of your claims.

[Rupert]

Can you show me one occasion on which I did so?

[Rupert]

I didn't.

[Rupert]

I'm not talking about John Hadley. It's another guy, and he's not an
ARA.

> >>>> You keep piling up
> >>>> the burdens of proof that you then shirk.
>
> >>> What do you want me to try to prove?
>
> >> All of it.
>
> > All of what?
>
> All of your claims.

Can you name a claim I've made that I haven't proved?

[George Plimpton]

I could, but I won't - you're just trying to waste my time. Perhaps
Derek will help you find one.

[George Plimpton]

You did. You attempt to waste my time in this manner quite often, actually.

[George Plimpton]

He's still a radical lying partisan. You're trying to appeal to
authority, when the credentials of the so-called authority are not
established.

>>>>>> You keep piling up
>>>>>> the burdens of proof that you then shirk.
>>
>>>>> What do you want me to try to prove?
>>
>>>> All of it.
>>
>>> All of what?
>>
>> All of your claims.
>
> Can you name a claim I've made that I haven't proved?

Yes: that equal consideration is due animals' interests.

[Mr.Smartypants]

Would you care to prove their not, Goo?

[Rupert]

I didn't. You have not explained many times or even once why /ex
ante/, all humans have the potential to be moral agents. One wonders
what the point of making the claim is if you have no interest in
defending it.