Vegetarian Discussion: "Speciesism" - A Disgusting Neologism, A Specious Criticim

"Speciesism" - A Disgusting Neologism, A Specious Criticim
Posts: 40

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)

N*@yahoo.com
2012-04-11 13:15:06 EST
The very word itself, if we can hold our noses and call it a word, is
disgusting. Most spell-checkers reject it as a properly spelled English
word. It's a revolting neologism, coined by sophists.

One of the most obvious defects in the "ar" criticism of so-called
"speciesism" is that it rather than say what is substantially wrong
with, "ar" passivists instead commit a logical fallacy, what might be
called the Guilt by Association or "Bad Company" fallacy. At the very
outset of any "ar" condemnation of "speciesism", there is an immediate
attempt to link it with racism and sexism, as if that's all that's
needed to show that "speciesism" not only is morally wrong but deeply
evil. In fact, the very word itself, with its "ism" suffix, is
deliberately - I would say cynically - intended to suggest this linkage.
There is no escaping the fact that this is a fallacy. If someone is
going to say that "speciesism" is wrong, he's going to have to say why
it is wrong in its substance.

The comparison, however, is wrong in *its* substance. Not only is it a
logical fallacy to condemn "speciesism" simply by comparing it to racism
and sexism, but the comparison is false; it doesn't stand up to
scrutiny. First of all, putting aside any concern about "marginal
cases", there *is* a general morally significant difference between
humans and all other species, a difference that is wholly
species-dependent. Humans are moral agents; no other animal species
contains any moral agents. That is a morally significant difference -
so much so, that "ar" passivists say humans are *obliged* to alter their
view of animals as a result of it. In other words, "ar" passivists are
themselves "speciesist" in condemning "speciesism". The failure of race
to be a morally significant separator is too obvious to require much
comment. Whatever moral attribute people might want to use as a
criterion for discrimination, race does not logically include or exclude
an individual. If admission to prestigious universities is to be
granted based on high grades and high standardized test scores, then
there is no valid reason to exclude someone of any given race if he has
sufficiently high scores. We don't need to invoke "marginal cases" to
see what's wrong with using race or sex as a discriminating criterion:
some, or perhaps even many, members of historically disadvantaged human
groups meet the objective criteria for inclusion.

The second way in which the comparison fails is that racial minorities
and women are able to advance their own claims that they possess the
traits that are supposed to be the criteria for inclusion. In fact, the
very act of making their own claim is part of the demonstration that
they *do* possess those relevant traits. Other species' members cannot
do this - *none* of them.

For these reasons, "speciesism" fails as a criticism of the human use of
animals.

Rupert
2012-04-11 13:44:05 EST
On Apr 11, 7:15 pm, notgen...@yahoo.com wrote:
> The very word itself, if we can hold our noses and call it a word, is
> disgusting.  Most spell-checkers reject it as a properly spelled English
> word.  It's a revolting neologism, coined by sophists.
>
> One of the most obvious defects in the "ar" criticism of so-called
> "speciesism" is that it rather than say what is substantially wrong
> with, "ar" passivists instead commit a logical fallacy, what might be
> called the Guilt by Association or "Bad Company" fallacy.  At the very
> outset of any "ar" condemnation of "speciesism", there is an immediate
> attempt to link it with racism and sexism, as if that's all that's
> needed to show that "speciesism" not only is morally wrong but deeply
> evil.  In fact, the very word itself, with its "ism" suffix, is
> deliberately - I would say cynically - intended to suggest this linkage.
>   There is no escaping the fact that this is a fallacy.  If someone is
> going to say that "speciesism" is wrong, he's going to have to say why
> it is wrong in its substance.
>
> The comparison, however, is wrong in *its* substance.  Not only is it a
> logical fallacy to condemn "speciesism" simply by comparing it to racism
> and sexism, but the comparison is false; it doesn't stand up to
> scrutiny.  First of all, putting aside any concern about "marginal
> cases", there *is* a general morally significant difference between
> humans and all other species, a difference that is wholly
> species-dependent.  Humans are moral agents; no other animal species
> contains any moral agents.  That is a morally significant difference -
> so much so, that "ar" passivists say humans are *obliged* to alter their
> view of animals as a result of it.  In other words, "ar" passivists are
> themselves "speciesist" in condemning "speciesism".  The failure of race
> to be a morally significant separator is too obvious to require much
> comment.  Whatever moral attribute people might want to use as a
> criterion for discrimination, race does not logically include or exclude
> an individual.  If admission to prestigious universities is to be
> granted based on high grades and high standardized test scores, then
> there is no valid reason to exclude someone of any given race if he has
> sufficiently high scores.  We don't need to invoke "marginal cases" to
> see what's wrong with using race or sex as a discriminating criterion:
> some, or perhaps even many, members of historically disadvantaged human
> groups meet the objective criteria for inclusion.
>
> The second way in which the comparison fails is that racial minorities
> and women are able to advance their own claims that they possess the
> traits that are supposed to be the criteria for inclusion.  In fact, the
> very act of making their own claim is part of the demonstration that
> they *do* possess those relevant traits.  Other species' members cannot
> do this - *none* of them.
>
> For these reasons, "speciesism" fails as a criticism of the human use of
> animals.

If you think that moral agency is the crucial morally relevant factor,
then extend the same amount of consideration to all moral patients,
human or nonhuman. That's not speciesism. If you are treating some
moral patients worse than others based on their species then that is
speciesism.

George Plimpton
2012-04-12 00:04:54 EST
On 4/11/2012 10:44 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 11, 7:15 pm, notgen...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> The very word itself, if we can hold our noses and call it a word, is
>> disgusting. Most spell-checkers reject it as a properly spelled English
>> word. It's a revolting neologism, coined by sophists.
>>
>> One of the most obvious defects in the "ar" criticism of so-called
>> "speciesism" is that it rather than say what is substantially wrong
>> with, "ar" passivists instead commit a logical fallacy, what might be
>> called the Guilt by Association or "Bad Company" fallacy. At the very
>> outset of any "ar" condemnation of "speciesism", there is an immediate
>> attempt to link it with racism and sexism, as if that's all that's
>> needed to show that "speciesism" not only is morally wrong but deeply
>> evil. In fact, the very word itself, with its "ism" suffix, is
>> deliberately - I would say cynically - intended to suggest this linkage.
>> There is no escaping the fact that this is a fallacy. If someone is
>> going to say that "speciesism" is wrong, he's going to have to say why
>> it is wrong in its substance.
>>
>> The comparison, however, is wrong in *its* substance. Not only is it a
>> logical fallacy to condemn "speciesism" simply by comparing it to racism
>> and sexism, but the comparison is false; it doesn't stand up to
>> scrutiny. First of all, putting aside any concern about "marginal
>> cases", there *is* a general morally significant difference between
>> humans and all other species, a difference that is wholly
>> species-dependent. Humans are moral agents; no other animal species
>> contains any moral agents. That is a morally significant difference -
>> so much so, that "ar" passivists say humans are *obliged* to alter their
>> view of animals as a result of it. In other words, "ar" passivists are
>> themselves "speciesist" in condemning "speciesism". The failure of race
>> to be a morally significant separator is too obvious to require much
>> comment. Whatever moral attribute people might want to use as a
>> criterion for discrimination, race does not logically include or exclude
>> an individual. If admission to prestigious universities is to be
>> granted based on high grades and high standardized test scores, then
>> there is no valid reason to exclude someone of any given race if he has
>> sufficiently high scores. We don't need to invoke "marginal cases" to
>> see what's wrong with using race or sex as a discriminating criterion:
>> some, or perhaps even many, members of historically disadvantaged human
>> groups meet the objective criteria for inclusion.
>>
>> The second way in which the comparison fails is that racial minorities
>> and women are able to advance their own claims that they possess the
>> traits that are supposed to be the criteria for inclusion. In fact, the
>> very act of making their own claim is part of the demonstration that
>> they *do* possess those relevant traits. Other species' members cannot
>> do this - *none* of them.
>>
>> For these reasons, "speciesism" fails as a criticism of the human use of
>> animals.
>
> If you think that moral agency is the crucial morally relevant factor,
> then extend the same amount of consideration to all moral patients,
> human or nonhuman.

You've given no valid reason why we should.


> That's not speciesism.

It's incoherent, is what it is.

Other species don't give any consideration to the interests of
individual members of different species. Saying that we *must*, due to
some intrinsic feature of our species, is "speciesist" (always put
quotes around "speciesism" and "speciesist" to indicate they're bullshit
made-up pseudo-words.)


> If you are treating some
> moral patients worse than others based on their species then that is
> speciesism.

Call it whatever wretched word you want; just don't say it's unethical,
because it isn't. Your claim about the <scoff> "default" position in
ethics is bullshit - rank stinking bullshit.

Zerkon
2012-04-12 08:43:59 EST
In article <qdydnaX0Os30yRvSnZ2dnUVZ5h2dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
g*e@si.not says...
> Other species don't give any consideration to the interests of
> individual members of different species.
>

Not correct. Ants herd, 'milk' and protect aphids. It's a great
assumption either way if this is defined as some aspect of "giving
consideration" however the associated behaviors humans regard as such
are still proved fact so a denial that a sense of consideration is
present can not be arrived at logically.

Symbiotic relationships permeate many if not all forms of life. For
instance, no one can claim certainty that one of the hundreds of species
of micro-organisms living inside each human that enable humans to live
are not "giving consideration to the interests" of their host.

Do you have a dog?


George Plimpton
2012-04-12 10:16:52 EST
On 4/12/2012 5:43 AM, Zerkon wrote:
> In article<qdydnaX0Os30yRvSnZ2dnUVZ5h2dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> george@si.not says...
>> Other species don't give any consideration to the interests of
>> individual members of different species.
>>
>
> Not correct. Ants herd, 'milk' and protect aphids. It's a great
> assumption either way if this is defined as some aspect of "giving
> consideration" however the associated behaviors humans regard as such
> are still proved fact so a denial that a sense of consideration is
> present can not be arrived at logically.

That's not the kind of consideration being prescribe by "ar" passivists.
They advocate that humans cause no harm to animals, or allow no harm
to happen, that they would not cause or allow to happen to a human. We
don't morally allow painful medical experimentation and testing to be
done on humans, so they say we shouldn't do it with animal subjects
either. No animals give that kind of consideration.

> Symbiotic relationships permeate many if not all forms of life. For
> instance, no one can claim certainty that one of the hundreds of species
> of micro-organisms living inside each human that enable humans to live
> are not "giving consideration to the interests" of their host.

That's not moral consideration.


> Do you have a dog?

Yes. I do give moral consideration to her interests, but not as much as
I give to the interests of my son. The "ar" passivists say I should
give the dog's interests equal consideration to those of my son, and no
more consideration to my son's than to any other person's or other
animals. But it doesn't work that way. If I arrive to pick my son up
from school and find the school is on fire and my son and another child
are in the classroom, and I have an opportunity to rescue one child
only, then I'm afraid little Billy's parents are going to be grieving
while I tuck my son safely in his bed that evening. That's just how it is.

Rupert
2012-04-12 11:51:56 EST
On Apr 12, 6:04 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 4/11/2012 10:44 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 7:15 pm, notgen...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> The very word itself, if we can hold our noses and call it a word, is
> >> disgusting.  Most spell-checkers reject it as a properly spelled English
> >> word.  It's a revolting neologism, coined by sophists.
>
> >> One of the most obvious defects in the "ar" criticism of so-called
> >> "speciesism" is that it rather than say what is substantially wrong
> >> with, "ar" passivists instead commit a logical fallacy, what might be
> >> called the Guilt by Association or "Bad Company" fallacy.  At the very
> >> outset of any "ar" condemnation of "speciesism", there is an immediate
> >> attempt to link it with racism and sexism, as if that's all that's
> >> needed to show that "speciesism" not only is morally wrong but deeply
> >> evil.  In fact, the very word itself, with its "ism" suffix, is
> >> deliberately - I would say cynically - intended to suggest this linkage.
> >>    There is no escaping the fact that this is a fallacy.  If someone is
> >> going to say that "speciesism" is wrong, he's going to have to say why
> >> it is wrong in its substance.
>
> >> The comparison, however, is wrong in *its* substance.  Not only is it a
> >> logical fallacy to condemn "speciesism" simply by comparing it to racism
> >> and sexism, but the comparison is false; it doesn't stand up to
> >> scrutiny.  First of all, putting aside any concern about "marginal
> >> cases", there *is* a general morally significant difference between
> >> humans and all other species, a difference that is wholly
> >> species-dependent.  Humans are moral agents; no other animal species
> >> contains any moral agents.  That is a morally significant difference -
> >> so much so, that "ar" passivists say humans are *obliged* to alter their
> >> view of animals as a result of it.  In other words, "ar" passivists are
> >> themselves "speciesist" in condemning "speciesism".  The failure of race
> >> to be a morally significant separator is too obvious to require much
> >> comment.  Whatever moral attribute people might want to use as a
> >> criterion for discrimination, race does not logically include or exclude
> >> an individual.  If admission to prestigious universities is to be
> >> granted based on high grades and high standardized test scores, then
> >> there is no valid reason to exclude someone of any given race if he has
> >> sufficiently high scores.  We don't need to invoke "marginal cases" to
> >> see what's wrong with using race or sex as a discriminating criterion:
> >> some, or perhaps even many, members of historically disadvantaged human
> >> groups meet the objective criteria for inclusion.
>
> >> The second way in which the comparison fails is that racial minorities
> >> and women are able to advance their own claims that they possess the
> >> traits that are supposed to be the criteria for inclusion.  In fact, the
> >> very act of making their own claim is part of the demonstration that
> >> they *do* possess those relevant traits.  Other species' members cannot
> >> do this - *none* of them.
>
> >> For these reasons, "speciesism" fails as a criticism of the human use of
> >> animals.
>
> > If you think that moral agency is the crucial morally relevant factor,
> > then extend the same amount of consideration to all moral patients,
> > human or nonhuman.
>
> You've given no valid reason why we should.
>

You've given no valid reason not to, and it's your job to do that. If
you want to say that a certain factor is morally relevant, it's your
job to defend that position.

> > That's not speciesism.
>
> It's incoherent, is what it is.
>

Why?

> Other species don't give any consideration to the interests of
> individual members of different species.

Sometimes they do but that is irrelevant.

> Saying that we *must*, due to
> some intrinsic feature of our species, is "speciesist" (always put
> quotes around "speciesism" and "speciesist" to indicate they're bullshit
> made-up pseudo-words.)
>

No, it's not. It's not speciesist to say that moral agents have moral
obligations.

> > If you are treating some
> > moral patients worse than others based on their species then that is
> > speciesism.
>
> Call it whatever wretched word you want; just don't say it's unethical,
> because it isn't.  Your claim about the <scoff> "default" position in
> ethics is bullshit - rank stinking bullshit.

If you want to discriminate on the basis of species you have an
obligation to say why it's justified.

George Plimpton
2012-04-12 12:42:28 EST
On 4/12/2012 8:51 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 12, 6:04 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 4/11/2012 10:44 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 11, 7:15 pm, notgen...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> The very word itself, if we can hold our noses and call it a word, is
>>>> disgusting. Most spell-checkers reject it as a properly spelled English
>>>> word. It's a revolting neologism, coined by sophists.
>>
>>>> One of the most obvious defects in the "ar" criticism of so-called
>>>> "speciesism" is that it rather than say what is substantially wrong
>>>> with, "ar" passivists instead commit a logical fallacy, what might be
>>>> called the Guilt by Association or "Bad Company" fallacy. At the very
>>>> outset of any "ar" condemnation of "speciesism", there is an immediate
>>>> attempt to link it with racism and sexism, as if that's all that's
>>>> needed to show that "speciesism" not only is morally wrong but deeply
>>>> evil. In fact, the very word itself, with its "ism" suffix, is
>>>> deliberately - I would say cynically - intended to suggest this linkage.
>>>> There is no escaping the fact that this is a fallacy. If someone is
>>>> going to say that "speciesism" is wrong, he's going to have to say why
>>>> it is wrong in its substance.
>>
>>>> The comparison, however, is wrong in *its* substance. Not only is it a
>>>> logical fallacy to condemn "speciesism" simply by comparing it to racism
>>>> and sexism, but the comparison is false; it doesn't stand up to
>>>> scrutiny. First of all, putting aside any concern about "marginal
>>>> cases", there *is* a general morally significant difference between
>>>> humans and all other species, a difference that is wholly
>>>> species-dependent. Humans are moral agents; no other animal species
>>>> contains any moral agents. That is a morally significant difference -
>>>> so much so, that "ar" passivists say humans are *obliged* to alter their
>>>> view of animals as a result of it. In other words, "ar" passivists are
>>>> themselves "speciesist" in condemning "speciesism". The failure of race
>>>> to be a morally significant separator is too obvious to require much
>>>> comment. Whatever moral attribute people might want to use as a
>>>> criterion for discrimination, race does not logically include or exclude
>>>> an individual. If admission to prestigious universities is to be
>>>> granted based on high grades and high standardized test scores, then
>>>> there is no valid reason to exclude someone of any given race if he has
>>>> sufficiently high scores. We don't need to invoke "marginal cases" to
>>>> see what's wrong with using race or sex as a discriminating criterion:
>>>> some, or perhaps even many, members of historically disadvantaged human
>>>> groups meet the objective criteria for inclusion.
>>
>>>> The second way in which the comparison fails is that racial minorities
>>>> and women are able to advance their own claims that they possess the
>>>> traits that are supposed to be the criteria for inclusion. In fact, the
>>>> very act of making their own claim is part of the demonstration that
>>>> they *do* possess those relevant traits. Other species' members cannot
>>>> do this - *none* of them.
>>
>>>> For these reasons, "speciesism" fails as a criticism of the human use of
>>>> animals.
>>
>>> If you think that moral agency is the crucial morally relevant factor,
>>> then extend the same amount of consideration to all moral patients,
>>> human or nonhuman.
>>
>> You've given no valid reason why we should.
>>
>
> You've given no valid reason not to, and it's your job to do that.

No, it isn't. You're proposing a massive change - it's your burden to
prove that we ought to make it.

The burden is on you and the other radicals, and predictably - because
you're do-nothing passivists - you're shirking your burden.


>>> That's not speciesism.
>>
>> It's incoherent, is what it is.
>>
>
> Why?

Already explained.


>> Other species don't give any consideration to the interests of
>> individual members of different species.
>
> Sometimes they do but that is irrelevant.

They never give the sort of consideration you say humans must give, and
it's entirely relevant. It's what shows that you are being "speciesist"
yourself.


>> Saying that we *must*, due to
>> some intrinsic feature of our species, is "speciesist" (always put
>> quotes around "speciesism" and "speciesist" to indicate they're bullshit
>> made-up pseudo-words.)
>>
>
> No, it's not. It's not speciesist to say that moral agents have moral
> obligations.

It's "speciesist" - you forgot the quotes, you fuck - to say that humans
are obliged to behave in a particular way based on a species-dependent
attribute.


>>> If you are treating some
>>> moral patients worse than others based on their species then that is
>>> speciesism.
>>
>> Call it whatever wretched word you want; just don't say it's unethical,
>> because it isn't. Your claim about the <scoff> "default" position in
>> ethics is bullshit - rank stinking bullshit.
>
> If you want to discriminate on the basis of species you have an
> obligation to say why it's justified.

Nope - you have an obligation to tell me what's wrong with it. You fail.

Rupert
2012-04-12 18:05:52 EST
On Apr 12, 6:42 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 4/12/2012 8:51 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 12, 6:04 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >> On 4/11/2012 10:44 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 11, 7:15 pm, notgen...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>> The very word itself, if we can hold our noses and call it a word, is
> >>>> disgusting.  Most spell-checkers reject it as a properly spelled English
> >>>> word.  It's a revolting neologism, coined by sophists.
>
> >>>> One of the most obvious defects in the "ar" criticism of so-called
> >>>> "speciesism" is that it rather than say what is substantially wrong
> >>>> with, "ar" passivists instead commit a logical fallacy, what might be
> >>>> called the Guilt by Association or "Bad Company" fallacy.  At the very
> >>>> outset of any "ar" condemnation of "speciesism", there is an immediate
> >>>> attempt to link it with racism and sexism, as if that's all that's
> >>>> needed to show that "speciesism" not only is morally wrong but deeply
> >>>> evil.  In fact, the very word itself, with its "ism" suffix, is
> >>>> deliberately - I would say cynically - intended to suggest this linkage.
> >>>>     There is no escaping the fact that this is a fallacy.  If someone is
> >>>> going to say that "speciesism" is wrong, he's going to have to say why
> >>>> it is wrong in its substance.
>
> >>>> The comparison, however, is wrong in *its* substance.  Not only is it a
> >>>> logical fallacy to condemn "speciesism" simply by comparing it to racism
> >>>> and sexism, but the comparison is false; it doesn't stand up to
> >>>> scrutiny.  First of all, putting aside any concern about "marginal
> >>>> cases", there *is* a general morally significant difference between
> >>>> humans and all other species, a difference that is wholly
> >>>> species-dependent.  Humans are moral agents; no other animal species
> >>>> contains any moral agents.  That is a morally significant difference -
> >>>> so much so, that "ar" passivists say humans are *obliged* to alter their
> >>>> view of animals as a result of it.  In other words, "ar" passivists are
> >>>> themselves "speciesist" in condemning "speciesism".  The failure of race
> >>>> to be a morally significant separator is too obvious to require much
> >>>> comment.  Whatever moral attribute people might want to use as a
> >>>> criterion for discrimination, race does not logically include or exclude
> >>>> an individual.  If admission to prestigious universities is to be
> >>>> granted based on high grades and high standardized test scores, then
> >>>> there is no valid reason to exclude someone of any given race if he has
> >>>> sufficiently high scores.  We don't need to invoke "marginal cases" to
> >>>> see what's wrong with using race or sex as a discriminating criterion:
> >>>> some, or perhaps even many, members of historically disadvantaged human
> >>>> groups meet the objective criteria for inclusion.
>
> >>>> The second way in which the comparison fails is that racial minorities
> >>>> and women are able to advance their own claims that they possess the
> >>>> traits that are supposed to be the criteria for inclusion.  In fact, the
> >>>> very act of making their own claim is part of the demonstration that
> >>>> they *do* possess those relevant traits.  Other species' members cannot
> >>>> do this - *none* of them.
>
> >>>> For these reasons, "speciesism" fails as a criticism of the human use of
> >>>> animals.
>
> >>> If you think that moral agency is the crucial morally relevant factor,
> >>> then extend the same amount of consideration to all moral patients,
> >>> human or nonhuman.
>
> >> You've given no valid reason why we should.
>
> > You've given no valid reason not to, and it's your job to do that.
>
> No, it isn't.  You're proposing a massive change - it's your burden to
> prove that we ought to make it.
>
> The burden is on you and the other radicals, and predictably - because
> you're do-nothing passivists - you're shirking your burden.
>

My proposal above simply amounts to taking your suggestion that moral
agency is the crucial factor seriously.

> >>> That's not speciesism.
>
> >> It's incoherent, is what it is.
>
> > Why?
>
> Already explained.
>

No.

> >> Other species don't give any consideration to the interests of
> >> individual members of different species.
>
> > Sometimes they do but that is irrelevant.
>
> They never give the sort of consideration you say humans must give, and
> it's entirely relevant.  It's what shows that you are being "speciesist"
> yourself.
>

Nonhuman animals can't give the same sort of consideration that humans
give, and it's not speciesist to refuse to ask them to do something
beyond their cognitive capacities.

> >> Saying that we *must*, due to
> >> some intrinsic feature of our species, is "speciesist" (always put
> >> quotes around "speciesism" and "speciesist" to indicate they're bullshit
> >> made-up pseudo-words.)
>
> > No, it's not. It's not speciesist to say that moral agents have moral
> > obligations.
>
> It's "speciesist" - you forgot the quotes, you fuck - to say that humans
> are obliged to behave in a particular way based on a species-dependent
> attribute.
>

That's not what is being said.

> >>> If you are treating some
> >>> moral patients worse than others based on their species then that is
> >>> speciesism.
>
> >> Call it whatever wretched word you want; just don't say it's unethical,
> >> because it isn't.  Your claim about the <scoff> "default" position in
> >> ethics is bullshit - rank stinking bullshit.
>
> > If you want to discriminate on the basis of species you have an
> > obligation to say why it's justified.
>
> Nope - you have an obligation to tell me what's wrong with it.  You fail.

Wrong.

George Plimpton
2012-04-15 20:11:41 EST
On 4/12/2012 3:05 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 12, 6:42 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 4/12/2012 8:51 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 12, 6:04 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 4/11/2012 10:44 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 11, 7:15 pm, notgen...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>> The very word itself, if we can hold our noses and call it a word, is
>>>>>> disgusting. Most spell-checkers reject it as a properly spelled English
>>>>>> word. It's a revolting neologism, coined by sophists.
>>
>>>>>> One of the most obvious defects in the "ar" criticism of so-called
>>>>>> "speciesism" is that it rather than say what is substantially wrong
>>>>>> with, "ar" passivists instead commit a logical fallacy, what might be
>>>>>> called the Guilt by Association or "Bad Company" fallacy. At the very
>>>>>> outset of any "ar" condemnation of "speciesism", there is an immediate
>>>>>> attempt to link it with racism and sexism, as if that's all that's
>>>>>> needed to show that "speciesism" not only is morally wrong but deeply
>>>>>> evil. In fact, the very word itself, with its "ism" suffix, is
>>>>>> deliberately - I would say cynically - intended to suggest this linkage.
>>>>>> There is no escaping the fact that this is a fallacy. If someone is
>>>>>> going to say that "speciesism" is wrong, he's going to have to say why
>>>>>> it is wrong in its substance.
>>
>>>>>> The comparison, however, is wrong in *its* substance. Not only is it a
>>>>>> logical fallacy to condemn "speciesism" simply by comparing it to racism
>>>>>> and sexism, but the comparison is false; it doesn't stand up to
>>>>>> scrutiny. First of all, putting aside any concern about "marginal
>>>>>> cases", there *is* a general morally significant difference between
>>>>>> humans and all other species, a difference that is wholly
>>>>>> species-dependent. Humans are moral agents; no other animal species
>>>>>> contains any moral agents. That is a morally significant difference -
>>>>>> so much so, that "ar" passivists say humans are *obliged* to alter their
>>>>>> view of animals as a result of it. In other words, "ar" passivists are
>>>>>> themselves "speciesist" in condemning "speciesism". The failure of race
>>>>>> to be a morally significant separator is too obvious to require much
>>>>>> comment. Whatever moral attribute people might want to use as a
>>>>>> criterion for discrimination, race does not logically include or exclude
>>>>>> an individual. If admission to prestigious universities is to be
>>>>>> granted based on high grades and high standardized test scores, then
>>>>>> there is no valid reason to exclude someone of any given race if he has
>>>>>> sufficiently high scores. We don't need to invoke "marginal cases" to
>>>>>> see what's wrong with using race or sex as a discriminating criterion:
>>>>>> some, or perhaps even many, members of historically disadvantaged human
>>>>>> groups meet the objective criteria for inclusion.
>>
>>>>>> The second way in which the comparison fails is that racial minorities
>>>>>> and women are able to advance their own claims that they possess the
>>>>>> traits that are supposed to be the criteria for inclusion. In fact, the
>>>>>> very act of making their own claim is part of the demonstration that
>>>>>> they *do* possess those relevant traits. Other species' members cannot
>>>>>> do this - *none* of them.
>>
>>>>>> For these reasons, "speciesism" fails as a criticism of the human use of
>>>>>> animals.
>>
>>>>> If you think that moral agency is the crucial morally relevant factor,
>>>>> then extend the same amount of consideration to all moral patients,
>>>>> human or nonhuman.
>>
>>>> You've given no valid reason why we should.
>>
>>> You've given no valid reason not to, and it's your job to do that.
>>
>> No, it isn't. You're proposing a massive change - it's your burden to
>> prove that we ought to make it.
>>
>> The burden is on you and the other radicals, and predictably - because
>> you're do-nothing passivists - you're shirking your burden.
>>
>
> My proposal above simply amounts to taking your suggestion that moral
> agency is the crucial factor seriously.

As it is an attribute that only attaches to one species, it's "speciesism".


>>>>> That's not speciesism.
>>
>>>> It's incoherent, is what it is.
>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> Already explained.
>>
>
> No.

Yes - explained.


>>>> Other species don't give any consideration to the interests of
>>>> individual members of different species.
>>
>>> Sometimes they do but that is irrelevant.
>>
>> They never give the sort of consideration you say humans must give, and
>> it's entirely relevant. It's what shows that you are being "speciesist"
>> yourself.
>>
>
> Nonhuman animals can't give the same sort of consideration that humans
> give, and it's not speciesist to refuse to ask them to do something
> beyond their cognitive capacities.

It *is* "speciesist" - you keep forgetting the quotes, asshole - to
demand they do something based on a species-dependent trait.


>>>> Saying that we *must*, due to
>>>> some intrinsic feature of our species, is "speciesist" (always put
>>>> quotes around "speciesism" and "speciesist" to indicate they're bullshit
>>>> made-up pseudo-words.)
>>
>>> No, it's not. It's not speciesist to say that moral agents have moral
>>> obligations.
>>
>> It's "speciesist" - you forgot the quotes, you fuck - to say that humans
>> are obliged to behave in a particular way based on a species-dependent
>> attribute.
>>
>
> That's not what is being said.

That *is* what is being said.


>>>>> If you are treating some
>>>>> moral patients worse than others based on their species then that is
>>>>> speciesism.
>>
>>>> Call it whatever wretched word you want; just don't say it's unethical,
>>>> because it isn't. Your claim about the<scoff> "default" position in
>>>> ethics is bullshit - rank stinking bullshit.
>>
>>> If you want to discriminate on the basis of species you have an
>>> obligation to say why it's justified.
>>
>> Nope - you have an obligation to tell me what's wrong with it. You fail.
>
> Wrong.

Nope - right, again.

Rupert
2012-04-15 21:30:28 EST
On Apr 16, 2:11 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 4/12/2012 3:05 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 12, 6:42 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >> On 4/12/2012 8:51 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 12, 6:04 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>    wrote:
> >>>> On 4/11/2012 10:44 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 11, 7:15 pm, notgen...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>>> The very word itself, if we can hold our noses and call it a word, is
> >>>>>> disgusting.  Most spell-checkers reject it as a properly spelled English
> >>>>>> word.  It's a revolting neologism, coined by sophists.
>
> >>>>>> One of the most obvious defects in the "ar" criticism of so-called
> >>>>>> "speciesism" is that it rather than say what is substantially wrong
> >>>>>> with, "ar" passivists instead commit a logical fallacy, what might be
> >>>>>> called the Guilt by Association or "Bad Company" fallacy.  At the very
> >>>>>> outset of any "ar" condemnation of "speciesism", there is an immediate
> >>>>>> attempt to link it with racism and sexism, as if that's all that's
> >>>>>> needed to show that "speciesism" not only is morally wrong but deeply
> >>>>>> evil.  In fact, the very word itself, with its "ism" suffix, is
> >>>>>> deliberately - I would say cynically - intended to suggest this linkage.
> >>>>>>      There is no escaping the fact that this is a fallacy.  If someone is
> >>>>>> going to say that "speciesism" is wrong, he's going to have to say why
> >>>>>> it is wrong in its substance.
>
> >>>>>> The comparison, however, is wrong in *its* substance.  Not only is it a
> >>>>>> logical fallacy to condemn "speciesism" simply by comparing it to racism
> >>>>>> and sexism, but the comparison is false; it doesn't stand up to
> >>>>>> scrutiny.  First of all, putting aside any concern about "marginal
> >>>>>> cases", there *is* a general morally significant difference between
> >>>>>> humans and all other species, a difference that is wholly
> >>>>>> species-dependent.  Humans are moral agents; no other animal species
> >>>>>> contains any moral agents.  That is a morally significant difference -
> >>>>>> so much so, that "ar" passivists say humans are *obliged* to alter their
> >>>>>> view of animals as a result of it.  In other words, "ar" passivists are
> >>>>>> themselves "speciesist" in condemning "speciesism".  The failure of race
> >>>>>> to be a morally significant separator is too obvious to require much
> >>>>>> comment.  Whatever moral attribute people might want to use as a
> >>>>>> criterion for discrimination, race does not logically include or exclude
> >>>>>> an individual.  If admission to prestigious universities is to be
> >>>>>> granted based on high grades and high standardized test scores, then
> >>>>>> there is no valid reason to exclude someone of any given race if he has
> >>>>>> sufficiently high scores.  We don't need to invoke "marginal cases" to
> >>>>>> see what's wrong with using race or sex as a discriminating criterion:
> >>>>>> some, or perhaps even many, members of historically disadvantaged human
> >>>>>> groups meet the objective criteria for inclusion.
>
> >>>>>> The second way in which the comparison fails is that racial minorities
> >>>>>> and women are able to advance their own claims that they possess the
> >>>>>> traits that are supposed to be the criteria for inclusion.  In fact, the
> >>>>>> very act of making their own claim is part of the demonstration that
> >>>>>> they *do* possess those relevant traits.  Other species' members cannot
> >>>>>> do this - *none* of them.
>
> >>>>>> For these reasons, "speciesism" fails as a criticism of the human use of
> >>>>>> animals.
>
> >>>>> If you think that moral agency is the crucial morally relevant factor,
> >>>>> then extend the same amount of consideration to all moral patients,
> >>>>> human or nonhuman.
>
> >>>> You've given no valid reason why we should.
>
> >>> You've given no valid reason not to, and it's your job to do that.
>
> >> No, it isn't.  You're proposing a massive change - it's your burden to
> >> prove that we ought to make it.
>
> >> The burden is on you and the other radicals, and predictably - because
> >> you're do-nothing passivists - you're shirking your burden.
>
> > My proposal above simply amounts to taking your suggestion that moral
> > agency is the crucial factor seriously.
>
> As it is an attribute that only attaches to one species, it's "speciesism".
>

You don't know that it only attaches to one species because you don't
know whether or not there exist any extraterrestrial species that have
the attribute. Even just confining our attention to terrestrial
species, moral agency is a matter of degree and not exclusively human.
But even supposing for the sake of argument that moral agency were
exclusively human, it still wouldn't follow that using moral agency as
a grounds for determining whether or not you attribute moral
obligations to someone is a form of speciesism. And of course there is
also the point that every moral theory attributes moral obligations to
moral agents and only to moral agents.

> >>>>> That's not speciesism.
>
> >>>> It's incoherent, is what it is.
>
> >>> Why?
>
> >> Already explained.
>
> > No.
>
> Yes - explained.
>

I am not aware of your having offered any explanation.

> >>>> Other species don't give any consideration to the interests of
> >>>> individual members of different species.
>
> >>> Sometimes they do but that is irrelevant.
>
> >> They never give the sort of consideration you say humans must give, and
> >> it's entirely relevant.  It's what shows that you are being "speciesist"
> >> yourself.
>
> > Nonhuman animals can't give the same sort of consideration that humans
> > give, and it's not speciesist to refuse to ask them to do something
> > beyond their cognitive capacities.
>
> It *is* "speciesist" - you keep forgetting the quotes, asshole - to
> demand they do something based on a species-dependent trait.
>
> >>>> Saying that we *must*, due to
> >>>> some intrinsic feature of our species, is "speciesist" (always put
> >>>> quotes around "speciesism" and "speciesist" to indicate they're bullshit
> >>>> made-up pseudo-words.)
>
> >>> No, it's not. It's not speciesist to say that moral agents have moral
> >>> obligations.
>
> >> It's "speciesist" - you forgot the quotes, you fuck - to say that humans
> >> are obliged to behave in a particular way based on a species-dependent
> >> attribute.
>
> > That's not what is being said.
>
> That *is* what is being said.
>

Obviously only moral agents can have moral obligations. Saying that is
not a form of speciesism. Even if it happened to be the case that
moral agency was exclusively human, which is actually not true, it
still wouldn't be speciesist to use moral agency as a criterion for
determining whether or not an individual has moral obligations.
Because the criterion being used is moral agency, not membership in a
particular species. If we encountered a chimp who had just as much
moral agency as a typical adult human, (and chimps actually do show
some degree of moral agency), then we would attribute to the chimp the
same moral obligations as a human. Similarly if we were to encounter
extraterrestrials who had as much moral agency as us.

You don't understand what speciesism is.

> >>>>> If you are treating some
> >>>>> moral patients worse than others based on their species then that is
> >>>>> speciesism.
>
> >>>> Call it whatever wretched word you want; just don't say it's unethical,
> >>>> because it isn't.  Your claim about the<scoff>  "default" position in
> >>>> ethics is bullshit - rank stinking bullshit.
>
> >>> If you want to discriminate on the basis of species you have an
> >>> obligation to say why it's justified.
>
> >> Nope - you have an obligation to tell me what's wrong with it.  You fail.
>
> > Wrong.
>
> Nope - right, again.

Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)


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