4f9fc753   
   XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.philosophy, talk.politics.animals   
   XPost: alt.politics   
   From: LaLaLaLaLaLa@philhendrie.con   
      
   On 4/11/2012 8:46 PM, Rupert wrote:   
   > On Apr 11, 8:37 pm, George Plimpton  wrote:   
   >> On 4/11/2012 10:40 AM, Rupert wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>> On Apr 11, 8:51 am, George Plimpton  wrote:   
   >>>> On 4/10/2012 10:50 PM, Rupert wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>>> On Apr 11, 2:16 am, George Plimpton    wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 4/10/2012 3:54 PM, Rupert wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>>>>> On Apr 10, 3:50 pm, George Plimpton      wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 4/10/2012 12:35 AM, Rupert wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 10:41 pm, George Plimpton        wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 4/9/2012 12:04 PM, Rupert wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 6:42 pm, George Plimpton          wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/9/2012 9:15 AM, Rupert wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 4:31 pm, George Plimpton              
   wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2012 11:43 PM, Rupert wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 6:44 am, George Plimpton                
   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.   
   >>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> That's not what you're doing.   
   >>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Why not?   
   >>   
   >>>>>>>>>> You tell us what your motive is.   
   >>   
   >>>>>>>>> I don't understand this.   
   >>   
   >>>>>> Yes, you do.   
   >>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "ar" passivists   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot give a coherent explanation of why "speciesism" is   
   wrong, except   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by invoking it themselves.  Only humans are capable of   
   conceiving of the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interests of members of other species.  To say that we   
   /must/ is itself   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "speciesist."   
   >>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not.   
   >>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is.   
   >>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You obviously don't understand what speciesism is.   
   >>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do understand full well what it is.  In fact, it's sophistry.   
   >>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Secondly, the only way the passivists attempt to show that   
   it's wrong is   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by comparison with other "isms" that they claim, without   
   explanation,   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are inherently and "obviously" wrong:  racism, sexism,   
   "heterosexism",   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc.  This comparison is cynical and dishonest.  First, a   
   discussion of   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *why* racism and sexism are (or might be) wrong quickly   
   reveals that   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they comprise negative thoughts and actions against people   
   of the same   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> species who share the same morally relevant characteristics   
   as those who   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are doing the discriminating.  A person's race or sex has   
   no bearing on   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his ability to participate in the moral community of   
   humanity.   
   >>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are plenty of intellectually disabled humans who cannot   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> participate in the moral comunnity of humanity to   
   >>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "marginal cases" doesn't work.  It's useless.   
   >>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not?   
   >>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've explained that to you before, too.  The argument from   
   species   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> normality defeats it, among other things.   
   >>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> The argument from species normality is flawed.   
   >>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't.  It fully defeats the fake argument from marginal   
   cases.   
   >>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Wrong.   
   >>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Nope; right.   
   >>   
   >>>>>>>>> What exactly are the premises of the argument from species normality?   
   >>   
   >>>>>>>> Above you wrote, "The argument from species normality is flawed."  Do   
   >>>>>>>> you mean to say you wrote that without knowing what the premises are?   
   >>>>>>>> That seems very reckless and irresponsible.   
   >>   
   >>>>>>> I believe that one of the premises of the argument from species   
   >>>>>>> normality is that the moral consideration an individual should get is   
   >>>>>>> determined by what characteristics are typical for that individual's   
   >>>>>>> species, and I believe that it is possible to construct thought-   
   >>>>>>> experiments which show this premise to be problematic.   
   >>   
   >>>>>> Have a go at it.   
   >>   
   >>>>> Do you know the thought-experiment of the chimpanzee who can   
   >>>>> understand advanced mathematics?   
   >>   
   >>>> Yes, of course.  It's the case of freak intelligence.  It fails, because   
   >>>> it is not symmetric with a marginal human case.  The actuality of the   
   >>>> chimp with freak intelligence entails the potentiality of moral   
   >>>> considerability, but the non-actuality of normal human cognition in the   
   >>>> marginal human does *not* entail the non-potentiality of being a moral   
   >>>> agent.  We see this clearly with humans who are only temporarily   
   >>>> incapacitated, or with children who mostly will develop to be moral   
   agents.   
   >>   
   >>> What do you mean by "potentiality"?   
   >>   
   >> Because humans are the unique class who are moral agents, then without   
   >> knowing anything else about a human being, you know at least that he has   
   >> the potential to be or to become a moral actor.  Furthermore, even when   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)