Find me philosophers who argue in favour of speciesism! Watch

comptroller
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#41
Report 4 years ago
#41
(Original post by there's too much love)
I've yet to find any modern day philosophers who advocate speciesism with valid arguments.

Those who advocate speciesism tend more to be those who have a vested interested in it (for animal testing as an example) and try to argue it is morally excusable.

As far as I can tell all contemporary moral philosophers do not advocate speciesism as a defensible position.

Thanks
Why not start with your argument that humans are not superior?
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#42
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#42
(Original post by comptroller)
Why not start with your argument that humans are not superior?
If I did that you'd say why not start it this way!!!!!
0
reply
Blutooth
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#43
Report 4 years ago
#43
(Original post by there's too much love)
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?
Thanks, I have been revising Wittgenstein for some upcoming exams. Wittgenstein thinks that there is no essential feature to some words like "game". There are just a family of cases. Some games are played with a competitor, some are not; some games involve winning, some do not etc. There would be some paradigmatic games, like bridge or tennis, but others that were less so like darts.

So the idea would be that when I am talking about speciesism, I am talking about a case of speciesism that may not be paradigmatic (paradigmatic " I am discriminating on the basis of species") but may be closely connected to the paradigmatic case ("I am discriminating on features closely aligned to that of a species.)

Bill Child's Wittgenstein offers the best explanatory account of his ideas.
0
reply
comptroller
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#44
Report 4 years ago
#44
(Original post by there's too much love)
If I did that you'd say why not start it this way!!!!!
I am confused by what you are asking for. What is it specifically that you want?
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#45
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#45
(Original post by Blutooth)
Thanks, I have been revising Wittgenstein for some upcoming exams. Wittgenstein thinks that there is no essential feature to some words like "game". There are just a family of cases. Some games are played with a competitor, some are not; some games involve winning, some do not etc. There would be some paradigmatic games, like bridge or tennis, but others that were less so like darts.

So the idea would be that when I am talking about speciesism, I am talking about a case of speciesism that may not be paradigmatic (paradigmatic " I am discriminating on the basis of species") but may be closely connected to the paradigmatic case ("I am discriminating on features closely aligned to that of a species.)

Bill Child's Wittgenstein offers the best explanatory account of his ideas.
I think you might want to take a step back actually:

When he talks about language games it's a very powerful and accurate metaphor, and is also very descriptive.

So words can be a part of multiple language games, meaning in some contexts they'll have one set of rules it'll make sense to use them in, and in others other sets.

If you've read on certainty you'll know the issue with the follow statement:

"I know that this is my hand" said the man staring at his hand.
0
reply
ClickItBack
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#46
Report 4 years ago
#46
(Original post by there's too much love)
I'm asking you to defend speciesism with a rational logical argument.

Saying that it's bad and other animals do it isn't a defence.

That's like one side in a war saying "the other rape and pillage our citizens so we should be allowed to as well!"

Morality is about prescriptions, what should one do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism

Please, defend your speciesism.
How about the argument from near-relatedness?

Begin from the axiom that when choosing a life to save between two, it is more moral to save that of the one who is more closely related to you genetically. This axiom also fits naturally into evolutionary reality.

Construct a function for assigning value to a life of an organism to allow decisions in the non-binary case. This will be a function of relatedness. Any function that does not contradict the first axiom is acceptable, though one can bring in other desirable qualities of the function to narrow down its possible forms.

Applied to the situation in question, any single human is worth more than any single non-human. Even those with genetic mutations have far more genetically in common with us. With a suitable choice of value-function, we can easily conclude that eating meat, say, is a logical moral choice.
0
reply
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#47
Report 4 years ago
#47
I don't know of any philosophers who defend speciesm, but I don't know of anyone at all who'd take anti speciesism to its logical conclusion and value the life of a human the same as that of a bacterium.
0
reply
lucaf
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#48
Report 4 years ago
#48
Lewis Petrinovich, I read a book by him a while back called the Darwinian Dominion. Was pretty interesting! Is that modern?
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#49
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#49
(Original post by KingStannis)
I don't know of any philosophers who defend speciesm, but I don't know of anyone at all who'd take anti speciesism to its logical conclusion and value the life of a human the same as that of a bacterium.
Not basing morality on species membership doesn't mean all species of life form are morally equal. I see you've found a new thread to troll.


(Original post by ClickItBack)
How about the argument from near-relatedness?

Begin from the axiom that when choosing a life to save between two, it is more moral to save that of the one who is more closely related to you genetically. This axiom also fits naturally into evolutionary reality.

Construct a function for assigning value to a life of an organism to allow decisions in the non-binary case. This will be a function of relatedness. Any function that does not contradict the first axiom is acceptable, though one can bring in other desirable qualities of the function to narrow down its possible forms.

Applied to the situation in question, any single human is worth more than any single non-human. Even those with genetic mutations have far more genetically in common with us. With a suitable choice of value-function, we can easily conclude that eating meat, say, is a logical moral choice.

Where did the argument come from that morality is based on genetic relation sorry?

One may have tendencies to prefer their kin, but that's not the same as it being moral. I don't accept that premise at all. Morality is about prescriptions, what one should do, not simply what one does or wants to do.
0
reply
Blutooth
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#50
Report 4 years ago
#50
(Original post by there's too much love)
I think you might want to take a step back actually:

When he talks about language games it's a very powerful and accurate metaphor, and is also very descriptive.

So words can be a part of multiple language games, meaning in some contexts they'll have one set of rules it'll make sense to use them in, and in others other sets.

If you've read on certainty you'll know the issue with the follow statement:

"I know that this is my hand" said the man staring at his hand.


Since each word can be involved in a number of different language games. You would think the word speciesist could have various meanings associated with it.

I have given you one interpretation. " Discriminating on the basis something shares fewer of the marks of being human". To say your interpretation is absolutely the right one in all language games, and mine not, would succumbing to the essentialist (words have an essence- an essential meaning) tendencies, Wittgenstein fought against.
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#51
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#51
(Original post by Blutooth)
I would say even in a given language game, a word may not have a sufficient and necessary set of conditions for its use. Saying this would contradict Wittgenstein's anti-essentialist beliefs. Though often the role a word plays in a game becomes clear. The meaning of the word king is only clear when we play the game of chess. That does not mean there is one way of describing the king even in the game, or that in all games of chess the king will be used the same way.

Now, more to the point. Since each word can be involved in a number of different language games. You would think the word speciesist could have various meanings associated with it.

I have given you one interpretation. " Discriminating on the basis something shares fewer of the marks of being human". To say your interpretation is absolutely the right one in all language games, and mine not, would succumbing to the essentialist (words have an essence- an essential meaning) tendencies, Wittgenstein fought against.
Can be doesn't mean it is, you have to look at how it is used already, if you just start making language games up you fall into the private language argument, which undermines the very notion of communication!
0
reply
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#52
Report 4 years ago
#52
(Original post by there's too much love)
Not basing morality on species membership doesn't mean all species of life form are morally equal. I see you've found a new thread to troll.

Do you even know what trolling is?

I don't know anything about applied ethics. i would base morality on organisms that meet some set of criteria for personhood. Does speciesism disagree with that?
0
reply
comptroller
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#53
Report 4 years ago
#53
The body, by design, destroys pathogens as well as animals that remain inside the body automatically. It is completely impractical to avoid killing some species of animal; particularly dust mites and other microscopic animals. It is vital for the normal running of the human body.

The equal treatment of animals therefore is infeasible and impractical.

Just by mere survival of the human species, one must kill non-human animals, it is physiologically unavoidable.
It is morally unjustifiable to expect one to do otherwise.

To be genuinely 'anti-speciesist', you surely would have to defend dust mites and other invisible microrganisms rights to live; even those microrganisms that die every time you wash your hands and teeth.

Everybody is speciesist in this regard.

The question should be turned to you, why do you favour some species over another? (say, dust mites and chimpanzees)
0
reply
User1824259
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#54
Report 4 years ago
#54
(Original post by ClickItBack)
How about the argument from near-relatedness?

Begin from the axiom that when choosing a life to save between two, it is more moral to save that of the one who is more closely related to you genetically. This axiom also fits naturally into evolutionary reality.

Construct a function for assigning value to a life of an organism to allow decisions in the non-binary case. This will be a function of relatedness. Any function that does not contradict the first axiom is acceptable, though one can bring in other desirable qualities of the function to narrow down its possible forms.

Applied to the situation in question, any single human is worth more than any single non-human. Even those with genetic mutations have far more genetically in common with us. With a suitable choice of value-function, we can easily conclude that eating meat, say, is a logical moral choice.
She's probably talking about extreme speciesism.
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#55
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#55
(Original post by KingStannis)
Do you even know what trolling is?

I don't know anything about applied ethics. i would base morality on organisms that meet some set of criteria for personhood. Does speciesism disagree with that?
No, speciesism says that morality should be based on species membership.

Take this as an example:

Most people are humans.

Most humans are people.

Some humans are not people.

Some people are not humans.

Some of the great apes also seem to have personhood, and the jury is out on other members of other species as well.

Therefore, if you are to save one animal over another, it would be based on their proximity to (in this example) personhood.

This would be regardless of what species a living being is from.

Bacteria however, show no signs of being close to personhood.
0
reply
Blutooth
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#56
Report 4 years ago
#56
(Original post by there's too much love)
Can be doesn't mean it is, you have to look at how it is used already, if you just start making language games up you fall into the private language argument, which undermines the very notion of communication!
To be fair, I have never used the word speciesist in my life before now. But you make a good point. We could do a poll to see whether people think "Discrimination on the basis of features that are shared with humans" would count as speciesism. I think many people would agree, probably more than half, yet some would not.

Not necessarily. Some interpreters of Wittgenstein think that solitary people can make up language games by themselves and play games by themselves or follow rules by themselves. On the constructivist reading of Wittgenstein this would be impossible (games/ rules can only exist when there is a community of speakers). However, on the deflationist reading this is entirely possible.

On the deflationist reading, playing a game/ following a rule only should count as following a rule in so far as it matches the paradigmatic cases. (Invoking Witt family resemblance). So if a person invented a new game (maybe throwing only special rock in the sky and catching it), we should decide whether that is a game based on how similar it is to other games (e.g. darts).
Have a look into Bill Child's Wittgenstein- it's very much worth it.
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#57
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#57
(Original post by comptroller)
The body, by design, destroys pathogens as well as animals that remain inside the body automatically. It is completely impractical to avoid killing some species of animal; particularly dust mites and other microscopic animals. It is vital for the normal running of the human body.

The equal treatment of animals therefore is infeasible and impractical.

Just by mere survival of the human species, one must kill non-human animals, it is physiologically unavoidable.
It is morally unjustifiable to expect one to do otherwise.

To be genuinely 'anti-speciesist', you surely would have to defend dust mites and other invisible microrganisms rights to live; even those microrganisms that die every time you wash your hands and teeth.

Everybody is speciesist in this regard.

The question should be turned to you, why do you favour some species over another? (say, dust mites and chimpanzees)
To be anti speciesist doesn't mean that all animals are equal, please see my above posts
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#58
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#58
(Original post by Blutooth)
To be fair, I have never used the word speciesist in my life before now. But you make a good point. We could do a poll to see whether people think "Discrimination on the basis of features that are shared with humans" would count as speciesism. I think many people would agree, probably more than half, yet some would not.

Not necessarily. Some interpreters of Wittgenstein think that solitary people can make up language games by themselves and play games by themselves or follow rules by themselves. On the constructivist reading of Wittgenstein this would be impossible (games/ rules can only exist when there is a community of speakers). However, on the deflationist reading this is entirely possible.

Playing a game/ following a rule only should count as following a rule in so far as it matches the paradigmatic cases. (Invoking Witt family resemblance). So if a person invented a new game (maybe throwing only special rock in the sky and catching it), we should decide whether that is a game based on how similar it is to other games (e.g. darts).
Have a look into Bill Child's Wittgenstein- it's very much worth it.
I only have phone internet at the moment so I can look into much for a little while unfortunately.

What use are those games unless someone else learns them. They're not communication.
0
reply
Blutooth
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#59
Report 4 years ago
#59
(Original post by there's too much love)
I only have phone internet at the moment so I can look into much for a little while unfortunately.

What use are those games unless someone else learns them. They're not communication.
You don't need to talk about darts to play it. So in answer to your question, general amusement I suppose.
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#60
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#60
(Original post by Blutooth)
You don't need to talk about darts to play it.
Well at the start you do...Otherwise you won't learn the rules.

But, please expand what your analogy means, as I'm unsure what point you're trying to make
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

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices?

Yes I know where I'm applying (129)
64.5%
No I haven't decided yet (42)
21%
Yes but I might change my mind (29)
14.5%

Watched Threads

View All