Vegetarian Discussion: Moral Significance Of Species Membership

Moral Significance Of Species Membership
Posts: 30

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page:  Previous  1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

Rupert
2010-06-27 17:14:42 EST
On Jun 28, 7:09 am, "Fred C. Dobbs" <fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
wrote:
> On 6/27/2010 2:02 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 28, 2:55 am, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
> > wrote:
> >> On 6/26/2010 8:08 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 28, 8:33 am, "Dutch"<n...@email.com>    wrote:
> >>>> "Rupert"<rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>    wrote
>
> >>>>> Ball thinks that it is an invalid approach to challenge to proponent
> >>>>> of the moral significance of species membership to give an account of
> >>>>> why it is morally relevant. I'm not sure why this is an unreasonable
> >>>>> request.
>
> >>>> It fails to define what equal consideration means while assuming that it
> >>>> should automatically extended.
>
> >>> It was Ball who first made the assertion that species membership
> >>> counts. I am simply asking him to back it up. If there is unclarity
> >>> about what it means then it is his job to clarify, too.
>
> >>>> It's also an unreasonable demand because it is blind to the origins and
> >>>> nature of human morality.
>
> >>> Well, I don't agree.
>
> >> You're wrong.
>
> > That's not an argument.
>
> No worse than "well I don't agree".- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No. But Dutch was the one who made the assertion, so, by your own
account of the matter, he has an obligation to back it up.

Rupert
2010-06-27 17:15:15 EST
On Jun 28, 7:10 am, "Fred C. Dobbs" <fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
wrote:
> On 6/27/2010 2:03 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 28, 2:54 am, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
> > wrote:
> >> On 6/26/2010 8:08 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 27, 8:44 am, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.not>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On 6/26/2010 1:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> thinks that it is an invalid approach to challenge to proponent
> >>>>> of the moral significance of species membership to give an account of
> >>>>> why it is morally relevant.
>
> >>>> You've never encountered anyone who *first* said that species membership
> >>>> is significant, prior to your mincing assertion that it has no significance.
>
> >>> Yes, I have. You.
>
> >> Nope.  You first asserted that species difference has no significance.
>
> > I have showed that
>
> You are the one who first asserted that species difference doesn't
> matter.  Only in response to that did I say that it does.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I have examined the actual Google Archives and found that the evidence
indicates otherwise.

Fred C. Dobbs
2010-06-27 17:35:07 EST
On 6/27/2010 2:14 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 28, 7:09 am, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
> wrote:
>> On 6/27/2010 2:02 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 28, 2:55 am, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 6/26/2010 8:08 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jun 28, 8:33 am, "Dutch"<n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Rupert"<rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>>>>>>> Ball thinks that it is an invalid approach to challenge to proponent
>>>>>>> of the moral significance of species membership to give an account of
>>>>>>> why it is morally relevant. I'm not sure why this is an unreasonable
>>>>>>> request.
>>
>>>>>> It fails to define what equal consideration means while assuming that it
>>>>>> should automatically extended.
>>
>>>>> It was Ball who first made the assertion that species membership
>>>>> counts. I am simply asking him to back it up. If there is unclarity
>>>>> about what it means then it is his job to clarify, too.
>>
>>>>>> It's also an unreasonable demand because it is blind to the origins and
>>>>>> nature of human morality.
>>
>>>>> Well, I don't agree.
>>
>>>> You're wrong.
>>
>>> That's not an argument.
>>
>> No worse than "well I don't agree".
>
> No. But Dutch was the

My rejoinder was no less an argument than yours, you precocious mincing boy.

Fred C. Dobbs
2010-06-27 17:35:38 EST
On 6/27/2010 2:15 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 28, 7:10 am, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
> wrote:
>> On 6/27/2010 2:03 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 28, 2:54 am, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 6/26/2010 8:08 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jun 27, 8:44 am, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.not>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/26/2010 1:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> thinks that it is an invalid approach to challenge to proponent
>>>>>>> of the moral significance of species membership to give an account of
>>>>>>> why it is morally relevant.
>>
>>>>>> You've never encountered anyone who *first* said that species membership
>>>>>> is significant, prior to your mincing assertion that it has no significance.
>>
>>>>> Yes, I have. You.
>>
>>>> Nope. You first asserted that species difference has no significance.
>>
>>> I have showed that
>>
>> You are the one who first asserted that species difference doesn't
>> matter. Only in response to that did I say that it does.
>
> I have examined the

You made the assertion first: that species difference doesn't matter.

Dutch
2010-06-27 18:33:13 EST
"Rupert" <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote
> Ball thinks that it is an invalid approach to challenge to proponent
> of the moral significance of species membership to give an account of
> why it is morally relevant. I'm not sure why this is an unreasonable
> request.

It fails to define what equal consideration means while assuming that it
should automatically extended.

It's also an unreasonable demand because it is blind to the origins and
nature of human morality.


Rupert
2010-06-27 19:59:16 EST
On Jun 28, 7:35 am, "Fred C. Dobbs" <fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
wrote:
> On 6/27/2010 2:14 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 28, 7:09 am, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
> > wrote:
> >> On 6/27/2010 2:02 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 28, 2:55 am, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On 6/26/2010 8:08 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Jun 28, 8:33 am, "Dutch"<n...@email.com>      wrote:
> >>>>>> "Rupert"<rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>      wrote
>
> >>>>>>> Ball thinks that it is an invalid approach to challenge to proponent
> >>>>>>> of the moral significance of species membership to give an account of
> >>>>>>> why it is morally relevant. I'm not sure why this is an unreasonable
> >>>>>>> request.
>
> >>>>>> It fails to define what equal consideration means while assuming that it
> >>>>>> should automatically extended.
>
> >>>>> It was Ball who first made the assertion that species membership
> >>>>> counts. I am simply asking him to back it up. If there is unclarity
> >>>>> about what it means then it is his job to clarify, too.
>
> >>>>>> It's also an unreasonable demand because it is blind to the origins and
> >>>>>> nature of human morality.
>
> >>>>> Well, I don't agree.
>
> >>>> You're wrong.
>
> >>> That's not an argument.
>
> >> No worse than "well I don't agree".
>
> > No. But Dutch was the
>
> My rejoinder was no less an argument than yours, you precocious mincing boy.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Indeed not. And, as I correctly observed, it wasn't an argument. So I
guess that's all sorted then.

Rupert
2010-06-27 19:59:35 EST
On Jun 28, 7:35 am, "Fred C. Dobbs" <fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
wrote:
> On 6/27/2010 2:15 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 28, 7:10 am, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
> > wrote:
> >> On 6/27/2010 2:03 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 28, 2:54 am, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On 6/26/2010 8:08 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Jun 27, 8:44 am, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.not>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 6/26/2010 1:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> thinks that it is an invalid approach to challenge to proponent
> >>>>>>> of the moral significance of species membership to give an account of
> >>>>>>> why it is morally relevant.
>
> >>>>>> You've never encountered anyone who *first* said that species membership
> >>>>>> is significant, prior to your mincing assertion that it has no significance.
>
> >>>>> Yes, I have. You.
>
> >>>> Nope.  You first asserted that species difference has no significance.
>
> >>> I have showed that
>
> >> You are the one who first asserted that species difference doesn't
> >> matter.  Only in response to that did I say that it does.
>
> > I have examined the
>
> You made the assertion first:  that species difference doesn't matter.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

An examination of the Google Archives shows the contrary.

Dutch
2010-06-27 20:03:07 EST

"Rupert" <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:00f7bb5c-51de-4937-97d7-dd4210f3d917@o14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 28, 2:55 am, "Fred C. Dobbs" <fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
wrote:
> On 6/26/2010 8:08 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 28, 8:33 am, "Dutch"<n...@email.com> wrote:
> >> "Rupert"<rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> >>> Ball thinks that it is an invalid approach to challenge to proponent
> >>> of the moral significance of species membership to give an account of
> >>> why it is morally relevant. I'm not sure why this is an unreasonable
> >>> request.
>
> >> It fails to define what equal consideration means while assuming that
> >> it
> >> should automatically extended.
>
> > It was Ball who first made the assertion that species membership
> > counts. I am simply asking him to back it up. If there is unclarity
> > about what it means then it is his job to clarify, too.

It's his job to clarify language that YOU introduce?.

You've raised shifting the burden to new levels.

Even DeGrazia admits that he is unclear what he means by the phrase.

> >> It's also an unreasonable demand because it is blind to the origins and
> >> nature of human morality.
>
> > Well, I don't agree.
>
> You're wrong.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That's not an argument.
-->

Neither is, "Well, I don't agree."


Dutch
2010-06-27 20:08:27 EST

"Rupert" <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3f923c89-9586-454c-ac93-cc4a440aa3e2@j17g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 28, 7:09 am, "Fred C. Dobbs" <fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
wrote:
> On 6/27/2010 2:02 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 28, 2:55 am, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
> > wrote:
> >> On 6/26/2010 8:08 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 28, 8:33 am, "Dutch"<n...@email.com> wrote:
> >>>> "Rupert"<rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> >>>>> Ball thinks that it is an invalid approach to challenge to proponent
> >>>>> of the moral significance of species membership to give an account
> >>>>> of
> >>>>> why it is morally relevant. I'm not sure why this is an unreasonable
> >>>>> request.
>
> >>>> It fails to define what equal consideration means while assuming that
> >>>> it
> >>>> should automatically extended.
>
> >>> It was Ball who first made the assertion that species membership
> >>> counts. I am simply asking him to back it up. If there is unclarity
> >>> about what it means then it is his job to clarify, too.
>
> >>>> It's also an unreasonable demand because it is blind to the origins
> >>>> and
> >>>> nature of human morality.
>
> >>> Well, I don't agree.
>
> >> You're wrong.
>
> > That's not an argument.
>
> No worse than "well I don't agree".- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No. But Dutch was the one who made the assertion, so, by your own
account of the matter, he has an obligation to back it up.
------>

I did back it up, I summarized my view of the evolution of morality
yesterday in the other thread. You read it and replied, calling species an
"arbitrary" difference, which it isn't.

Arguments have been given, however I reject the proposition. Unequal
consideration is reality, nature. Nobody acts according to equal
consideration, not even among humans.

The default starting position in all this, derived from our basic nature as
mammals competing for resources is that the first and only consideration is
personal survival. Add to that our instincts to defend our offspring, and
our social bonds to family and tribe and you have our position as early homo
sapiens. Part of human experience through all this is hunting, gathering,
and farming. Then layer on that over millennia the extension of
consideration wider to include other tribes, nations, races, etc and you see
the evolution of morality. There is no logical connection between this view
of human history and extension of equal moral consideration beyond humanity.
It is simply an abstract idea.




Rupert
2010-06-27 20:08:29 EST
On Jun 28, 10:03 am, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:00f7bb5c-51de-4937-97d7-dd4210f3d917@o14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 28, 2:55 am, "Fred C. Dobbs" <fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 6/26/2010 8:08 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 28, 8:33 am, "Dutch"<n...@email.com> wrote:
> > >> "Rupert"<rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > >>> Ball thinks that it is an invalid approach to challenge to proponent
> > >>> of the moral significance of species membership to give an account of
> > >>> why it is morally relevant. I'm not sure why this is an unreasonable
> > >>> request.
>
> > >> It fails to define what equal consideration means while assuming that
> > >> it
> > >> should automatically extended.
>
> > > It was Ball who first made the assertion that species membership
> > > counts. I am simply asking him to back it up. If there is unclarity
> > > about what it means then it is his job to clarify, too.
>
> It's his job to clarify language that YOU introduce?.
>

No. Ball made the assertion "Species membership counts" before I
started talking about DeGrazia's ideas about equal consideration. It
is his job to defend that claim. If there is unclarity about what he
means by it then it is his job to clarify the claim.

> You've raised shifting the burden to new levels.
>

Nonsense.

>  Even DeGrazia admits that he is unclear what he means by the phrase.
>

I am happy to examine DeGrazia's notion of "equal consideration" and
whether it bears any relation to what Ball is talking about if you
wish. I was talking about Ball's claim, which he made on March 16
2006, that species membership is morally significant. He made that
claim before I initiated a discussion of DeGrazia's notion of equal
consideration. I believe that it is a claim that requires a defence.

> > >> It's also an unreasonable demand because it is blind to the origins and
> > >> nature of human morality.
>
> > > Well, I don't agree.
>
> > You're wrong.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> That's not an argument.
> -->
>
> Neither is, "Well, I don't agree."

Indeed not. As pointed out elsewhere, you made an unargued assertion,
and it's reasonable for me to respond by saying "Well, I don't agree".
Page:  Previous  1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron