tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post7479219265436435930..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Brief intro to Singer on speciesismStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-89994185311294866892008-12-27T00:32:00.000+00:002008-12-27T00:32:00.000+00:00I hope this post isn't so old that no one will see...I hope this post isn't so old that no one will see my reply to it:<BR/><BR/>http://mrgood1000.blogspot.com/2008/11/animal-rights-more-like-animal-wrongs.htmlJuddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09749100872169765077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-30408415110420169352007-11-20T18:56:00.000+00:002007-11-20T18:56:00.000+00:00A non-moral speciesism exists naturally in a natur...A non-moral speciesism exists naturally in a natural animal food chain. Since consciousness and morality arrived late on the scene in humans it is excusable that humans have followed this natural order of speciesism in exploiting the food chain. <BR/><BR/>So, here we are now, still trying to make our cultural and genetic inheritance fit our modern view of species. But we're not as advanced as we'd like to think. How quickly would we revert to survival methods that take full advantage of any food available, if we had to? Even if we could prevent a return to some of the undesirable and cruel culturally driven practices of the past, could we deny our genetic makeup? We'd still eat meat.<BR/><BR/>"A new attitude towards other species?", "The day may come when the human race looks back on the way we currently treat other species ..." - Don't hold your breath. Some form of speciesism is here to stay for the foreseeable future.<BR/><BR/>Probably the best we can expect is legislating against unnecessary animal cruelty, and minimising animal suffering in the processing of food for humans.<BR/><BR/>The moral justifaction then for discrimination in the food chain is that it is evolutionarily natural for humans to eat other species. A mutual respect and feeling for sentience and suffering in other species may govern which species we eat and how we kill them.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11039815765507965606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-9223764915876996692007-11-20T18:23:00.000+00:002007-11-20T18:23:00.000+00:00Let's put this another way. Equal rights for human...Let's put this another way. Equal rights for humans is in some sense equivalent to a universal duty not to discriminate between humans.<BR/><BR/>However, I don't see any point in a universal duty not to discriminate between granite and sandstone, or between cabbages and cauliflowers, or between rabbits and whippets. In each case I don't see why I should have to justify arbitrary favouritism.<BR/><BR/>So what is it that elevates an entity to the club where equal treatment matters?Joe Ottenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18380362092159905533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-36208783982649192802007-11-20T14:58:00.000+00:002007-11-20T14:58:00.000+00:00What's wrong with accepting that in many cases, pe...What's wrong with accepting that in many cases, people ARE speciesist: they disregard the moral interests of animals for no other reason than that they have long been accustomed to presuming that animals may be treated in nearly any fashion without moral scruple. But this need not imply that a non-speciesist must always find that animals may never be killed, eaten, etc. Perhaps there might be morally sufficient justification in some or even many cases for such uses of animals. But good reasons need to be offered in support of such a perspective. I think one problem is that many people want to find something wrong with Singer's viewpoints so that they can dismiss further consideration of the ethics of dealing with animals and hold that there is simply no serious problem to be confronted.Eric Sotnakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06162425851889399481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-12751622258437954902007-11-19T14:50:00.000+00:002007-11-19T14:50:00.000+00:00fridgemonkey - Singer's justification is that disc...fridgemonkey - Singer's justification is that discrimination on the grounds of quality X is wrong where quality X is irrelevant to the matter being discriminated (so, for example, discriminating between carpenters on the grounds that one of them is a better carpenter than the other is fine, discriminating on the grounds that one of them is a woman is not). Singer's contention is that the qualities we choose when considering the treatment of others (suffering pain, consciousness, having foresight, or whatever) are not confined to one species, so saying that animal suffering (for example) is less important than human suffering is introducing an irrelevance (species) into consideration of suffering.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-26939574715270373182007-11-19T13:47:00.000+00:002007-11-19T13:47:00.000+00:00What justification does Singer give for suggesting...What justification does Singer give for suggesting species-ism is analogous to racism or sexism?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-22868169327839032532007-11-18T20:36:00.000+00:002007-11-18T20:36:00.000+00:00I don't think this does answer my question in the ...I don't think this does answer my question in the other thread. I think these answers begin to follow from the answers to the question why should we recognise the equal rights of all humans.<BR/><BR/>Singer famously doesn't recognise the equal rights of all humans, and many consider him a monster because of this.<BR/><BR/>And I suggest that an attitude that doesn't distinguish much morally between one's servants, wives and horses is actually nothing new, it has been practised for millennia. Spreading rights this thin necessarily diminishes them.Joe Ottenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18380362092159905533noreply@blogger.com