Find me philosophers who argue in favour of speciesism! Watch

KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#61
Report 4 years ago
#61
(Original post by there's too much love)
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.
i guess that seems reasonable.
0
reply
comptroller
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#62
Report 4 years ago
#62
(Original post by there's too much love)
To be anti speciesist doesn't mean that all animals are equal, please see my above posts
Try to answer the question put to you.

The point was not that all animals were equal, but that one must discriminate against some species.
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#63
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#63
(Original post by comptroller)
Try to answer the question put to you.

The point was not that all animals were equal, but that one must discriminate against some species.
That's not on the basis of species membership but circumstance and the characteristics of certain life forms.

You would have found that answer had you read my posts above.
0
reply
comptroller
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#64
Report 4 years ago
#64
(Original post by there's too much love)
That's not on the basis of species membership but circumstance and the characteristics of certain life forms.

You would have found that answer had you read my posts above.
Species is defined as animals that share characteristics, among other things.
You might be missing the point here.
1
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#65
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#65
(Original post by comptroller)
Species is defined as animals that share characteristics, among other things.
You might be missing the point here.
Not at all, certain species will fit into those characteristics, it is, as I said, unavoidable. However, it is the basis of sentience that most agree morality is important.
0
reply
Blutooth
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#66
Report 4 years ago
#66
(Original post by there's too much love)
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

Hmm, we can talk about a dog as following commands, say fetch, yet we can't explain in words anything to the dog beyond the word "fetch" . So , I do not feel that rule-following necessarily requires either the rule follower or the person following the rule has to be able to explain what he is doing. Paradigmatic/ the most common cases of rule-following do tend to also have description surrounding them, but not all do.
0
reply
Dalek1099
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#67
Report 4 years ago
#67
The vast majority of humans are intellectually and consciously superior to animals, a lot of animals don't even pass the basic mirror test and act basically on instinct which to me indicates they are just like dumb computers and their isn't really anything suffering inside of them.There are a small proportion of people who are so mentally disabled that they could be classed as the same as an animal but to treat them as such would hurt relatives who love them and care for them a lot due to human nature and these people do have greater value than animals as previously explained thus speciesism is defensible.

To anyone who even thinks animals can be close to humans intellectually think how many cities have they built?what exams do they sit? and think how much humans have been able to manipulate our environment compared to animals.I am not convinced by concepts of personhood in other animals as I believe for that to be true animals would have to show a lot more intelligence than they do at the moment, we haven't seen animals speaking yet or sitting formal exams with humans and learning in schools with humans thus we must consider their intelligence as nowhere near that of humans.

This means that all suffering of animals is of no particular concern of humans as they aren't really alive(you might have an argument that for intelligent animals like apes, dolphins who do pass mirror test that we shouldn't harm them), they are able to fake that they are alive but they aren't any different to dumb computers and the pain you see is simply an instinctual reaction which could be replicated with robot.I thus feel as if all animal charities should be abolished as human needs must be put first always and since humans are the top predators and animals prey it is OK for us to eat them for dinner, when I eat meat it fills me with pride that this animal has died for my meal and makes me feel superior.
1
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#68
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#68
(Original post by Blutooth)
Hmm, we can talk about a dog as following commands, say fetch, yet we can't explain in words anything to the dog beyond the word "fetch" . So , I do not feel that rule-following necessarily requires either the rule follower or the person following the rule has to be able to explain what he is doing. Paradigmatic/ the most common cases of rule-following do tend to also have description surrounding them, but not all do.
Well firstly, we can explain things more than fetch, 'good girl/boy' .

But secondly, the reason you don't need to explain what you are doing there is because everyone is playing the same language game.
0
reply
The Epicurean
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#69
Report 4 years ago
#69
(Original post by there's too much love)
Singer is anti speciesist
He has defended the eating of bivalves on a number of occasions. He makes a case based upon sentience (or lack thereof), for eating bivalves.

It would be intellectually dishonest to treat the bonobo and a bivalve such as a mussel as equivalent. There is a demarcation between species in terms of their sentience and ability to feel pain, although that demarcation is not clear. The issue is where do we draw the line, and I think that we must base our choice upon practicality and logic. It is no different that the issue of the age of consent. Currently, the age of consent varies from 13 in Spain and to 21 in Bahrain. It is difficult to specify why 17 is better than 18 or vice versa. It is essentially the "sorites paradox." If I remove a grain of sand from a heap of sand, at what point does a heap of sand stop becoming a heap?


From a nutritional perspective, animals products are an easy and valuable source of nutrition. For example, Vitamin B12, Calcium, Iron, Protein, Docosahexaenoic Acid, Eicosapentaenoic acid etc... Whilst many of these nutrients can be attained from other sources, it is often more difficult and many people who do try to often end up with nutritional deficiencies. Also, from a perspective of a person with IBS, many non-animal sources of protein are rather difficult to digest and aggravate IBS symptoms, and animals products happen to be one of the easiest and nutritious foods that all IBS sufferers can eat without issue. So animals products can provide an important nutritional contribution to ones diet, especially those who have issues with consuming many plant based products.

From an ethical perspective, most species are sentient and it is hard to defend eating animals based upon this perspective. I imagine you know all the arguments here so I shall avoid mentioning them. Bivalves however potentially buck the trend here and could justifiably be classified as non-sentient. Most species have developed the ability to feel pain to help them navigate the world. The evolutionary benefit being that pain sensors enable a species to avoid harmful stimulai. Bivalves however are sessile and so there is no evolutionary benefit in expending energy in order to sense harmful stimulai but not react to them. Their lack of motility would suggest either a lack of pain sensation, or very rudimentary pain sensation at best. Sessile bivalves are able to open and close their shells, but that would be no different to many plants which we consume which are able to open and close their buds. So in terms of sentience, there isn't much difference between your common bivalve and plant

Unlike fishing in general, line grown bivalves such as mussels do not suffer from the issue of bycatch and so other sentient animals are not harmed in the farming of bivalves. Mussel and oyster cultivation also has a beneficial effect on water quality. So, unlike conventional animal and fish farming which have many negative effects on the environment, oyster and mussel farming actually offer many benefits to the environment.



So in summation. Sessile bivalves like Mussels are often considered to be non-sentient. Farming them does not cause environmental degradation and bycatch issues are no more extensive that deaths caused to animals by conventional farming methods used for grains and such. Bivalves also make an important nutritional contribution to the diet which non-animal based diets often lack. So from practicality (good source of nutrition) and from logical deduction (lack of sentience), I believe that we can, based upon these reasonings, choose to apply speciesism towards the bivalves and consider them as a separate issue to sentient creatures such as mammals.
1
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#70
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#70
(Original post by The Epicurean)
He has defended the eating of bivalves on a number of occasions. He makes a case based upon sentience (or lack thereof), for eating bivalves.

It would be intellectually dishonest to treat the bonobo and a bivalve such as a mussel as equivalent. There is a demarcation between species in terms of their sentience and ability to feel pain, although that demarcation is not clear. The issue is where do we draw the line, and I think that we must base our choice upon practicality and logic. It is no different that the issue of the age of consent. Currently, the age of consent varies from 13 in Spain and to 21 in Bahrain. It is difficult to specify why 17 is better than 18 or vice versa. It is essentially the "sorites paradox." If I remove a grain of sand from a heap of sand, at what point does a heap of sand stop becoming a heap?


From a nutritional perspective, animals products are an easy and valuable source of nutrition. For example, Vitamin B12, Calcium, Iron, Protein, Docosahexaenoic Acid, Eicosapentaenoic acid etc... Whilst many of these nutrients can be attained from other sources, it is often more difficult and many people who do try to often end up with nutritional deficiencies. Also, from a perspective of a person with IBS, many non-animal sources of protein are rather difficult to digest and aggravate IBS symptoms, and animals products happen to be one of the easiest and nutritious foods that all IBS sufferers can eat without issue. So animals products can provide an important nutritional contribution to ones diet, especially those who have issues with consuming many plant based products.

From an ethical perspective, most species are sentient and it is hard to defend eating animals based upon this perspective. I imagine you know all the arguments here so I shall avoid mentioning them. Bivalves however potentially buck the trend here and could justifiably be classified as non-sentient. Most species have developed the ability to feel pain to help them navigate the world. The evolutionary benefit being that pain sensors enable a species to avoid harmful stimulai. Bivalves however are sessile and so there is no evolutionary benefit in expending energy in order to sense harmful stimulai but not react to them. Their lack of motility would suggest either a lack of pain sensation, or very rudimentary pain sensation at best. Sessile bivalves are able to open and close their shells, but that would be no different to many plants which we consume which are able to open and close their buds. So in terms of sentience, there isn't much difference between your common bivalve and plant

Unlike fishing in general, line grown bivalves such as mussels do not suffer from the issue of bycatch and so other sentient animals are not harmed in the farming of bivalves. Mussel and oyster cultivation also has a beneficial effect on water quality. So, unlike conventional animal and fish farming which have many negative effects on the environment, oyster and mussel farming actually offer many benefits to the environment.



So in summation. Sessile bivalves like Mussels are often considered to be non-sentient. Farming them does not cause environmental degradation and bycatch issues are no more extensive that deaths caused to animals by conventional farming methods used for grains and such. Bivalves also make an important nutritional contribution to the diet which non-animal based diets often lack. So from practicality (good source of nutrition) and from logical deduction (lack of sentience), I believe that we can, based upon these reasonings, choose to apply speciesism towards the bivalves and consider them as a separate issue to sentient creatures such as mammals.
That's a very well written post, and I agree with almost everything you've said. However I have not found veganism to be difficult in the least. 20 years ago you might have had a stronger point, but veganism has become much more widely recognised and as a result, is much easier for one in the western world to adopt.
0
reply
The Epicurean
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#71
Report 4 years ago
#71
(Original post by there's too much love)
That's a very well written post, and I agree with almost everything you've said. However I have not found veganism to be difficult in the least. 20 years ago you might have had a stronger point, but veganism has become much more widely recognised and as a result, is much easier for one in the western world to adopt.
But can you make a case for all individuals? It cannot be denied that there are individuals who do follow a vegan diet and do have deficiencies. Although that said, I guess it can also be argued that there are many non-vegans who also suffer from nutritional deficiencies, so it is not something exclusive to vegans.

But then there is also the case that there are many people who do struggle with eating many plant based foods, such as people with IBS who often struggle with foods like; legumes, nuts, seeds, soy, wheat, barley, rye, apples, pears, broccoli, mushrooms etc.. Just search for a list of "high fodmap" foods and you will see that many popular vegan plant based foods are recommended to be avoided. Do you think in such a case that a vegan diet would be all that easy?

Out of interest, if it were to be proven that sessile bivalves were 100% non-sentient, would you still remain vegan?
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#72
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#72
(Original post by The Epicurean)
But can you make a case for all individuals? It cannot be denied that there are individuals who do follow a vegan diet and do have deficiencies. Although that said, I guess it can also be argued that there are many non-vegans who also suffer from nutritional deficiencies, so it is not something exclusive to vegans.

But then there is also the case that there are many people who do struggle with eating many plant based foods, such as people with IBS who often struggle with foods like; legumes, nuts, seeds, soy, wheat, barley, rye, apples, pears, broccoli, mushrooms etc.. Just search for a list of "high fodmap" foods and you will see that many popular vegan plant based foods are recommended to be avoided. Do you think in such a case that a vegan diet would be all that easy?

Out of interest, if it were to be proven that sessile bivalves were 100% non-sentient, would you still remain vegan?
Personally my IBS is better since turning vegan.

However, it will always be harder for some than for others. Having said all that, I also argue that regardless of those difficulties (and I don't agree with you on deficiencies) that the it's still the right thing to do, and what people should do.
0
reply
The Epicurean
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#73
Report 4 years ago
#73
(Original post by there's too much love)
Personally my IBS is better since turning vegan.

However, it will always be harder for some than for others. Having said all that, I also argue that regardless of those difficulties (and I don't agree with you on deficiencies) that the it's still the right thing to do, and what people should do.
Is this to say that you would still remain vegan even if it were proven 100% that bivalves were non-sentient? I personally couldn't think of a reason against eating bivalves if it were proven that they were 100% non-sentient.
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#74
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#74
(Original post by The Epicurean)
Is this to say that you would still remain vegan even if it were proven 100% that bivalves were non-sentient? I personally couldn't think of a reason against eating bivalves if it were proven that they were 100% non-sentient.
Thats' where veganism becomes a grey area, however, I would argue it's in keeping with the spirit of veganism.
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 (55)
67.9%
No I haven't decided yet (17)
20.99%
Yes but I might change my mind (9)
11.11%

Watched Threads

View All