Find me philosophers who argue in favour of speciesism! Watch

User1824259
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#21
Report 4 years ago
#21
(Original post by there's too much love)
I'm not the one making that argument, you are, can you not defend your views.
Actually you are.
0
reply
Hal.E.Lujah
  • Study Helper
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#22
Report 4 years ago
#22
(Original post by there's too much love)
Singer is anti speciesist
Oh, Anti?!

I actually do have examples of that somewhere, but as my essays were spent ripping them (and Singer) apart I'd rather not use them. Pro speciesism actually found fairly often in literary discourse if you count that though.
0
reply
User1824259
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#23
Report 4 years ago
#23
(Original post by Hal.E.Lujah)
Is Singer no longer considered modern?


... god I'm old.
Interesting fact: Peter Singer supports infanticide and killing his own mother who had Alzheimer's.
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#24
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#24
(Original post by Hal.E.Lujah)
Oh, Anti?!

I actually do have examples of that somewhere, but as my essays were spent ripping them (and Singer) apart I'd rather not use them. Pro speciesism actually found fairly often in literary discourse if you count that though.
I haven't found any moral philosophers or valid arguments that defend speciesism unfortunately . Feel free to post any you have come across! But as you've ripped them to shreds it sounds like they won't be valid (or they will be but will be based on something other than reality).


(Original post by crosstalk)
Interesting fact: Peter Singer supports infanticide and killing his own mother who had Alzheimer's.
Interesting fact: You won't defend your views. Is it because they are indefensible?
0
reply
viddy9
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#25
Report 4 years ago
#25
(Original post by crosstalk)
I'll be waiting for the day when animals stood up for their rights.
They don't care about the concept of 'rights', which Bentham rightly called nonsense upon stilts.

They do, however, have an interest in not suffering. Currently, we inflict unnecessary suffering on other species due to our speciesism.

You've continually failed to provide any logical justification for speciesism in this thread, so far.
0
reply
User1824259
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#26
Report 4 years ago
#26
(Original post by viddy9)
They don't care about the concept of 'rights', which Bentham rightly called nonsense upon stilts.

They do, however, have an interest in not suffering. Currently, we inflict unnecessary suffering on other species due to our speciesism.

You've continually failed to provide any logical justification for speciesism in this thread, so far.
What would you consider an unnecessary suffering?
0
reply
Blutooth
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#27
Report 4 years ago
#27
I think Singer and others have made an argument from psychological continuity that our lives seem to matter more.
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#28
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#28
(Original post by Blutooth)
I think Singer and others have made an argument from psychological continuity that our lives seem to matter more.
Not on the basis of species membership
0
reply
Blutooth
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#29
Report 4 years ago
#29
(Original post by there's too much love)
Not on the basis of species membership
Well no, but it does offer an argument for suggesting members of our species should be treated differently, and that perhaps one should as a result be a spiecist.
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#30
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#30
(Original post by Blutooth)
Well no, but it does offer an argument for suggesting members of our species should be treated differently, and that perhaps one should as a result be a spiecist.
Nope, sorry
0
reply
Blutooth
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#31
Report 4 years ago
#31
(Original post by there's too much love)
Nope, sorry
Call me crazy but, I value the life of a human more than I do a chimpanzee.
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#32
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#32
(Original post by Blutooth)
Call me crazy but, I value the life of a human more than I do a chimpanzee.
How do you get past the argument from marginal cases?
0
reply
Blutooth
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#33
Report 4 years ago
#33
(Original post by there's too much love)
How do you get past the argument from marginal cases?
Most people aren't marginal cases. It's only at the marginal cases I might become confused as to which I care more about.

When is a teapot a teapot? Some jugs might look like teapots. Just because there are marginal cases, it does't stop us from using the word appropriately.
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#34
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#34
(Original post by Blutooth)
Most people aren't marginal cases. It's only at the marginal cases I might become confused as to which I care more about.

When is a teapot a teapot? Some jugs might look like teapots. Just because there are marginal cases, it does't stop us from using the word appropriately.
You misunderstand, a speciesist bases their discrimination on species membership. So being human isn't enough for you to discriminate about (based on what you've said) but instead, a lot of humans may have a quality that most animals don't have (the great apes and other very intelligent animals may also have such a quality).
0
reply
viddy9
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#35
Report 4 years ago
#35
(Original post by crosstalk)
What would you consider an unnecessary suffering?
The plight of nonhuman animals in the factory farming system. The slaughter of nonhuman animals despite healthy, alternative foods being available.

Again, please justify why we should give more weight to the interests of humans.

(Original post by Blutooth)
I think Singer and others have made an argument from psychological continuity that our lives seem to matter more.
As the original poster stated, this was not on the basis of species membership. They've also said that an adult chimpanzee's or an adult pig's life matters more than a human infant's life all things being equal, and that if an animal experiment had to be done, the litmus test as to whether it is necessary or not would be whether the experimenter would be okay if the experiment was being performed on a severely intellectually disabled human or a human infant.

They are most certainly not justifying speciesism.
0
reply
Blutooth
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#36
Report 4 years ago
#36
(Original post by there's too much love)
You misunderstand, a speciesist bases their discrimination on species membership. So being human isn't enough for you to discriminate about (based on what you've said) but instead, a lot of humans may have a quality that most animals don't have (the great apes and other very intelligent animals may also have such a quality).

(Original post by viddy9)
The plight of nonhuman animals in the factory farming system. The slaughter of nonhuman animals despite healthy, alternative foods being available.

Again, please justify why we should give more weight to the interests of humans.



As the original poster stated, this was not on the basis of species membership. They've also said that an adult chimpanzee's or an adult pig's life matters more than a human infant's life all things being equal, and that if an animal experiment had to be done, the litmus test as to whether it is necessary or not would be whether the experimenter would be okay if the experiment was being performed on a severely intellectually disabled human or a human infant.

They are most certainly not justifying speciesism.
Valid points, negated somewhat by the fact that I think someone can be a speciesist without being a categorical speciesist.

When pressed someone can say it's not because of their gender that they dislike someone per se- but everything they associate with that gender. It's not that he's a man- that I don't like him, but that he wears trainers , has a chiselled jaw, a deep voice and acts like a man. In such a case we would describe that someone as sexist.

See Wittgenstein on family resemblance concepts.
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#37
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#37
(Original post by Blutooth)
Valid points, negated somewhat by the fact that I think someone can be a speciesist without being a categorical speciesist.

When pressed someone can say it's not because of their gender that they dislike someone per se- but everything they associate with that gender. It's not that he's a man- that I don't like him, but that he wears trainers , has a chiselled jaw, a deep voice and acts like a man. In such a case we would describe that someone as sexist.

See Wittgenstein on family resemblance concepts.
Not liking someone isn't the same as discriminating against them.

You would also need to ground the categories that you're using on the basis of discrimination on something logical. If you could do this by using examples where the marginal cases aren't also included that'd be grand
0
reply
Blutooth
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#38
Report 4 years ago
#38
Similarly, it's not because a person is a person that I value them more but because a person of the human species bears all the marks of being a human that I value them. If there were another such animal that could do that too, I would value them more too.

And we do tend to appreciate dolphins, monkeys more than we do lizards and chicken. Is it because the former are more human?
0
reply
Blutooth
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#39
Report 4 years ago
#39
(Original post by there's too much love)
Not liking someone isn't the same as discriminating against them.

You would also need to ground the categories that you're using on the basis of discrimination on something logical. If you could do this by using examples where the marginal cases aren't also included that'd be grand
Ok, but then we could extend the argument to cases where I feel discrimination is more justified based on that they are less human.

I could try to ground this prejudice in terms of something more objective-like psychological continuity, complexity of thought etc.

Is it any surprise that i have chosen features that are typical of human beings in the most paradigmatic cases? No.
Then could I not be said to be a speciesist, even if it seems as though I am attempting to be objective? I should think so.
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#40
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#40
(Original post by Blutooth)
Similarly, it's not because a person is a person that I value them more but because a person of the human species bears all the marks of being a human that I value them. If there were another such animal that could do that too, I would value them more too.

And we do tend to appreciate dolphins, monkeys more than we do lizards and chicken. Is it because the former are more human?
I'm not sure you quite get the argument from marginal cases. Human = Person are not the same thing, strictly speaking, it's just the vast majority of humans are people.

Ironically I think you might need referring to Wittgenstein P.I. on the basis that I think you might be mis-using the term 'speciesist':P . But I do need to look into that area of Wittgenstein that you mentioned . Have you got a reference to any of his translated works on that topic that I could look at?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Why wouldn't you turn to teachers if you were being bullied?

They might tell my parents (2)
10.53%
They might tell the bully (3)
15.79%
I don't think they'd understand (3)
15.79%
It might lead to more bullying (6)
31.58%
There's nothing they could do (5)
26.32%

Watched Threads

View All