quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabbits doth run and play while Mortious gently hums:
This is EC.
Yeah, I know, but I try to stay optimistic nonetheless.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Blackened said:WHAT IS A man
quote:
nem-x.
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
It's good to see someone actually responding intelligently!Point 1 -- you now need to show why the West should dump it's traditions in favor of Asian ones simply in order to save the bananas. The question isn't whether there's any philosophy in the world that reveres all life, but whether there's any basis within the one we have to give plants and animals the same right to exist as humans do. Or, failing that, one must make a case for abandoning what we have in favor of a philosophy that does grant them those rights. Good luck.
Relativist Falaciy.
quote:
Quoth Naimah:
Relativist Falaciy.
Actually, it isn't. But, hey, nice attempt to sound smart saying shit you don't understand!
The above fallacy applies only in cases where the argument being denied is an objective truth. Unless you'd care to prove that giving plants and animals the same rights as people is somehow an objective truth, I suggest you study your logic primer in a bit more depth before reentering the lists.
That, or you could quit trying to be clever and simply make a case for what you think should be true. Your call.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage said:
nice attempt to sound smart saying shit you don't understand!
This is EC.
quote:
Blackened had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Duck Tales:
Actually, it isn't. But, hey, nice attempt to sound smart saying shit you don't understand!The above fallacy applies only in cases where the argument being denied is an objective truth. Unless you'd care to prove that giving plants and animals the same rights as people is somehow an objective truth, I suggest you study your logic primer in a bit more depth before reentering the lists.
That, or you could quit trying to be clever and simply make a case for what you think should be true. Your call.
So why didn't you just say that my moral code dosn't give plants any consideration at the beginning? If philosophies other then your own have no bearing then you can not be convinced to abandon your position.
quote:
nem-x.
a miserable little pile of secretsquote:
Bent over the coffee table, Naimah squealed:
So why didn't you just say that my moral code dosn't give plants any consideration at the beginning? If philosophies other then your own have no bearing then you can not be convinced to abandon your position.
Do you not listen?
If you think everyone should abandon the existing philosophical basis for Western civilization in favor of your own pet philosophy, you have to say why they should do so.
No one gives a flying fuck if you think it'd be really peachy to save the whales, protect the pandas, sanctify the seals, revere the rodents, caress the kangaroos, or deify the dogs. But in arguing that it's both right and necessary that everyone else do so also, it's up to you to be convincing. And so far, you've not provided a single logical argument to do so.
A wiser person might reevaluate his position in light of the fact that he can't support it.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Mortious startled the peaceful upland Gorillas, blurting:
This is EC.
I'm an eternal optimist.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
Do you not listen?If you think everyone should abandon the existing philosophical basis for Western civilization in favor of your own pet philosophy, you have to say why they should do so.
No one gives a flying fuck if you think it'd be really peachy to save the whales, protect the pandas, sanctify the seals, revere the rodents, caress the kangaroos, or deify the dogs. But in arguing that it's both right and necessary that everyone else do so also, it's up to you to be convincing. And so far, you've not provided a single logical argument to do so.
A wiser person might reevaluate his position in light of the fact that he can't support it.
Just because someone dosn't hold your belief structure dosn't make them wrong. You are basing your argument on the faith that your perception of the situation is the right one and claiming that anyone that presents a different view has no grounds to do so.
quote:Grow up.
Naimah.
Just because someone dosn't hold your belief structure dosn't make them wrong. You are basing your argument on the faith that your perception of the situation is the right one and claiming that anyone that presents a different view has no grounds to do so.
The only philosophical support is to assert a right for all things to exist, which you then need to justify.
This is going to sound really, really, mean, but you need to do a bit of reading on logic before spouting off like this. The only thing you've done, repeatedly, is assert your conclusion. Even granting the notion--which I don't--that it can be wrong to destroy something that has no particular right to exist, you still have to provide the basis for saying that it is wrong. "There's an article that supports my position, but which I'm not going to quote," is not an argument and answers no questions.
You should also know that the evidence for biological resilience far outweighs that for complicated theories of ironclad interdependence. Random species becoming overspecialized and then extinct happens all the time and has throughout the earth's history. It's not the worldwide disaster alarmists claim.
All life doesn't have intrinsic aesthetic, ecologic, economic, or scientific value, and those those that do possess one or more of the above qualities do not possess them in the same degree. You can't argue that because apples are an important cash crop, we must preserve the ebola virus from extinction.
Logic dictates that you either provide real justification for your assertion, or accept that it's not true. You have to advance a positive argument for your position, and trying to shoot holes in the status quo is not the same thing as advancing a positive argument. A positive argument has the form, "This is true because X, Y and Z," not, "This is true because I don't accept what you say." Time to put up or shut up.
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Naimah absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
Just because someone dosn't hold your belief structure dosn't make them wrong. You are basing your argument on the faith that your perception of the situation is the right one and claiming that anyone that presents a different view has no grounds to do so.
No, not at all. You're just whining now.
You asserted, absolutely without basis, that it's wrong to allow species to go extinct. The only argument you've brought forward is that some dude no one's ever heard of and who you refuse to explain or quote, agrees with you. 
Since my position represents the status quo, I don't have to have an argument. But, nice guy that I am, I have pointed out several things:
In the end, though, as the one asserting the positive proposition that it's immoral to allow plants or animals to become extinct, it's up to you to provide logical arguments as to why this is so. "There's a particular Asian religion that holds all life sacred," doesn't work unless you also point out why we should scrap what we have in favor of that way of seeing the world. It is always up to the person suggesting a change to the status quo to justify himself, not the other way around.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage.
That Blackened guy sure is one smart, sexy mofo!
Snitches get stitches.
u rr gay Mr. Parcelan fucked around with this message on 05-18-2006 at 02:00 PM.
quote:
Nemx was naked while typing this:
Here's something creepy!
I'd hit it. I'd hit it 9 times.
quote:
Bloodsage painfully thought these words up:
No, not at all. You're just whining now.You asserted, absolutely without basis, that it's wrong to allow species to go extinct. The only argument you've brought forward is that some dude no one's ever heard of and who you refuse to explain or quote, agrees with you.
Since my position represents the status quo, I don't have to have an argument. But, nice guy that I am, I have pointed out several things:
- The philosophical underpinning of our civilization gives people the right to exist, negating the "we're the same as other life forms" argument.
- That same philosophy mentions nothing about the rights of grass or dung beatles, so it cannot be taken for granted that they have a right to exist.
- The biodiversity scare tactics don't work, either, because one cannot generalize the consequences of losing each individual species as being catastrophic--it therefore stands to reason that the world won't end if random species become extinct. This negates the "OMG! unknown bad consequences" argument.
In the end, though, as the one asserting the positive proposition that it's immoral to allow plants or animals to become extinct, it's up to you to provide logical arguments as to why this is so. "There's a particular Asian religion that holds all life sacred," doesn't work unless you also point out why we should scrap what we have in favor of that way of seeing the world. It is always up to the person suggesting a change to the status quo to justify himself, not the other way around.
As I said just because you havn't heard of him dosn't mean he isn't an expert. Due to everyone bitching endlessly about me not having quoted him directly, even though I stated the general thrust of his paper, I bring you quotes. These are selected to outline his argument as I see it pertaining to this discussion. There are several points that he brings up tht I did not capture quotes about. If you desire a more detailed understanding of the paper it can be found in the Journal of Philosophy; Volume LXXV, No.6 June 1978 entitled "On Being Morally Considerable" by Kenneth Goodpaster.
Anyways onto the quotes.
The question being addressed is stated as such.
quote:
For all A, X deserves moral consideration from A where A ranges over rational moral agents and moral 'consideration' is construed broadly to include the most basic form of practical respect (as so is not restricted to "possesion of rights" by X).
As you can see, this seems to be getting at the heart of the discussion. X dosn't have rights but it should still matter in some fashion.
quote:
Nothing short of being alive seems to me to be a plausible and non arbitrary condition [for being morally considerable].
This is where he sets up the argument that takes place during the majority of the paper. Several alternative positions are presented each of which he presents a logical objection to.
quote:
The question of if a tree deserves consideration must be kept seperate from if it deserves as much as a dog or a human.
These seems to be a tripping point for many. When it is presented that living things deserve consideration people look at it as trying to give me them the right to vote. This is not the case. Merely that actions regarding morally considerable beings should be given some thought.
quote:
...it seems arbitrary to draw the boundary of moral considerablity around rational human beings... might [be reasonable to] draw the boundary of moral responsibility [around rational human beings].
This is presented, with signifigant support, to mkae the case that while we are not the only things that are morally considerable we may very well be the only things with a moral responsibility.
quote:
..qualify beings as [moral] beneficiaries and capable of harm-namely, life...
This is the closing point made that if something is living then it can be harmed and is a moral beneficiary.
quote:
In face of their obvious tendencies to maintain and heal themselves, it is very difficult to reject the idea of interests of [plants] in remaining alive.
Argument for even the simplist of living things demonstrate interests, giving merit to them being morally considerable.
quote:
(O2) To suggest that moral considerability is coextensive with life is to suggest that convious feeling being have no more centeral role in moral life then vegatables.(R2) ...life has moral considerability...different then moral signifigance.
This is a paraphrasing of an objection and a response to a position I felt it likly that the opposition would take.
These are merely a cross section of the proposal as a whole. If you desire a more fundamental understanding of his argument I suggest you read the paper as it will be able to more fully answer your questions then my casual understanding of it.
quote:
Sakkra stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
I'd hit it. I'd hit it 9 times.
You'd hit anything with a hole.
quote:
Snoota don't surf.
You'd hit anything with a hole.
Well, it's not like I have enough options to be picky.
quote:
How.... Snoota.... uughhhhhh:
You'd hit anything with a hole.
At least he does it well. Asha'man fucked around with this message on 05-18-2006 at 10:04 PM.
quote:
Asha'man enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
At least he does it well.
Wait, so you're saying you know for a fact that Sakkra is good in bed?
My name is Paul, and that's between ya'll.
Part 2: We have a misunderstanding of qualitative vs. quantitative here, then. My proof was only designed to show that at least some level of biodiversity in mankind's environment is necessary, and thus a good thing, which is enough to defeat your qualitative statement that it was to the contrary. If you wish to discuss the quantitative of how much biodiversity is required, and how much is expendable, I wouldn't be naive enough to argue that every species must be preserved, merely that it would be logical not to allow the rate of extinction of distinct species to accelerate too far past the birth rate of new ones, else the doomsday scenario of man's overpsecialization becomes inevitable.
In any case, I make no qualms of ever actually beating you in this debate (If I even could, I'm too lazy to do so), but watching some of your broader statements that make easy targets go unchallenged while leading into the Banana's Rights movement made me want to give your opponents a leg up, although Niamah's last post shows promise. 
It also made me realize I'm pretty rusty at this, heh.
(Oh, and I'm not really anyone new, I used to have the handle "ProphetofDark" or something, but I couldn't remember the password after my last re-format, and I figured losing my post count of 5 wasn't catastrophic.)
quote:
Bent over the coffee table, Darkness squealed:
Point 1: Ah, well, I would have thought the matter more of a global concern, especially given that the species in question originates, is primarily produced in, and whose species-saving genes reside in an Asian country. If the question is why, or to what level, Western culture should be involved, or when global biodiversity became their sole domain, then that's a whole other argument. As such, you either make a bit of a bold assumption that everyone in your audience is a part of the Western Culture, when debating over a global communications network, or you should clarify your "we" pronoun better.Part 2: We have a misunderstanding of qualitative vs. quantitative here, then. My proof was only designed to show that at least some level of biodiversity in mankind's environment is necessary, and thus a good thing, which is enough to defeat your qualitative statement that it was to the contrary. If you wish to discuss the quantitative of how much biodiversity is required, and how much is expendable, I wouldn't be naive enough to argue that every species must be preserved, merely that it would be logical not to allow the rate of extinction of distinct species to accelerate too far past the birth rate of new ones, else the doomsday scenario of man's overpsecialization becomes inevitable.
In any case, I make no qualms of ever actually beating you in this debate (If I even could, I'm too lazy to do so), but watching some of your broader statements that make easy targets go unchallenged while leading into the Banana's Rights movement made me want to give your opponents a leg up, although Niamah's last post shows promise.
It also made me realize I'm pretty rusty at this, heh.
(Oh, and I'm not really anyone new, I used to have the handle "ProphetofDark" or something, but I couldn't remember the password after my last re-format, and I figured losing my post count of 5 wasn't catastrophic.)
You'll have to point out anywhere I said biodiversity is always a bad idea. I said simply that it's not good in and of itself, and therefore isn't required for all species, since all things don't have equal value.
Second, you'll need to point out exactly where some random people in Asia with a particular philosophy is relevant. The assertion made was that everyone has a duty to protect every living thing. Thus, one must prove why those in the West must adopt a foreign philosophy just so grasses and bugs can gain the same rights as people.
Jeebus, if people spent as much time thinking as they did looking for ways to misinterpret things to their advantage, this might get interesting.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
How badly did you fail school? Do you really things random snippets and half-sentences prove anything? The only thing you've done is prove that your source either doesn't say what you want it to, or you don't understand what it does say, because the parts you quote, on the whole, don't say what you've interpreted them to say.
Further, even if one accepts your "expert," it's not like you automatically win your point. You still have to show why this one random dude's thinking process should replace the current basis for our moral and philosophical thinking.
So here's your homework:
1. Quote enough of your source so it doesn't look like you're manipulating the text like some clumsy Baghdad Bob apprentice
2. Tell us why it's so compelling that it deserves worldwide adoption and universal application
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Verily, Asha'man doth proclaim:
At least he does it well.
quote:
Bloodsage was listening to Cher while typing:
Naimah,How badly did you fail school?
Further, even if one accepts your "expert," it's not like you automatically win your point. You still have to show why this one random dude's thinking process should replace the current basis for our moral and philosophical thinking.
So here's your homework:
1. Quote enough of your source so it doesn't look like you're manipulating the text like some clumsy Baghdad Bob apprentice
2. Tell us why it's so compelling that it deserves worldwide adoption and universal application
You're setting unreasonable standards. I'm not submitting a term paper. I don't have access to a digital copy of the source, because I am uncertain if one even exists, and thus doing extensive quotation would be an absurd demand on my time considering the forum on which this discussion is being conducted.
The paper ties in virtually perfectly and how you fail to see that escapes me, unless it is wilful ignorance. You made the claim that for it to be wrong to deny something ability to exist it had to have the right to exist. This paper, as many of the quotes I provided demonstrate, proposes a construct that allows for moral agents to consider things that have no rights such as plants, animals, or even the biosphere.
He is an expert. Unless you doubt Notre Dame and Harvards judgement of qualification. You'll also note that the article that I am citing has been reprinted 5 times.
You still have to make the case why we should drop what we have and follow this guy's advice.
Further, quoting half-sentences that may or may not say what you claim they do is just as bad as not quoting anything. I find it hard to believe that you have access only to half-sentences and incomplete thoughts. . .yet feel comfortable that this guy is 100% on your side and everyone should roll over and say, "Okay." At the very least, you owe it to us to quote full sentences, so we can judge the meaning for ourselves. The burden of proof is on you, not us.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
So quoth Bloodsage:
The fact that he's an expert doesn't mean it's obligatory that the rest of the world follow his advice on subjective matters. You'll note that the sources upon which I'm relying are equally expert, and also enjoy historical celebrity in their fields, as well as near-universal acceptance of their ideas.You still have to make the case why we should drop what we have and follow this guy's advice.
Further, quoting half-sentences that may or may not say what you claim they do is just as bad as not quoting anything. I find it hard to believe that you have access only to half-sentences and incomplete thoughts. . .yet feel comfortable that this guy is 100% on your side and everyone should roll over and say, "Okay." At the very least, you owe it to us to quote full sentences, so we can judge the meaning for ourselves. The burden of proof is on you, not us.
I have access to the entire article and have gone over it in its entirety. I paraphrased for convience. As I said, it isn't a digital copy and doing extensive unparaphased quotation would be unduly demanding on my time. If you believe that I am twisting the meaning of what he intended, I encourage you to cite proof of such a claim. Otherwise I request that you consider the work as has been presented.
This system does not superceed the rights based system which we addhear to now. What it does is give things, which can't have rights, a moral signifigance so that we may use the structure that we have currently in making decisions that affect these things. Why this simple, and reasonable idea, is so utterly revolting to you escapes me. Yet you refuse to state why you think that it is unacceptable so that I can attempt to convince you otherwise. You have derailed this argument from its original intent by citing a fallacy, which considering your self proclaimed expert status on logic and debate, you had to know would degenerate into something similar to this. One less skilled side attempting to resolve a mostly begnine issue futily while you cite increasily esoteric reasons for why it isn't good enough.
I have attempted to play by your rules. I have attempted to satisfy your demands. Yet you still refuse to treat me with any modicum of respect. You pepper your responses with personal attacks and treat everything I present as deserving no consideration simply because I presented it. Why, other then to inflate your own ego, would you continue to engage in this activity with someone who you so obviously have no respect for?
does that not apply to more than just humans and animals?
quote:
BeauChan enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
what happened to the "if the butterly flaps it's wings" effect?does that not apply to more than just humans and animals?
It's utterly unpredictable and thus not a useful basis for decisionmaking. Leaving a species to breed might through some incredibly obscure set of circumstances lead to a crop which will feed the world or to the worst plague in the history of the universe. We can only act based on information we actually have.
quote:
Naimah enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
I have access to the entire article and have gone over it in its entirety. I paraphrased for convience. As I said, it isn't a digital copy and doing extensive unparaphased quotation would be unduly demanding on my time. If you believe that I am twisting the meaning of what he intended, I encourage you to cite proof of such a claim. Otherwise I request that you consider the work as has been presented.
So, wait. You say you have a paper written by an expert that backs your position up nicely, but you're unwilling to present us with half of his argument because you lack the time to do so.
Why, that doesn't sound stupid at all! 
Welcome to debate. If you want us to accept your point of view, you need to give us a damn good reason, and that can take quite a while.
As for proof that you're twisting the meaning of your expert's paper, how about the fact that you've chopped up most of the stuff you posted just to save a little time? As well as the fact that, as you yourself have said, a digital copy is probably not available for us to look at? For all we know, the paper you cite could be arguing against your position.
quote:
This system does not superceed the rights based system which we addhear to now. What it does is give things, which can't have rights, a moral signifigance so that we may use the structure that we have currently in making decisions that affect these things. Why this simple, and reasonable idea, is so utterly revolting to you escapes me. Yet you refuse to state why you think that it is unacceptable so that I can attempt to convince you otherwise. You have derailed this argument from its original intent by citing a fallacy, which considering your self proclaimed expert status on logic and debate, you had to know would degenerate into something similar to this. One less skilled side attempting to resolve a mostly begnine issue futily while you cite increasily esoteric reasons for why it isn't good enough.
Your argument hasn't been accepted because you've failed to make a good case for it. I thought that would be obvious.
quote:
I have attempted to play by your rules. I have attempted to satisfy your demands. Yet you still refuse to treat me with any modicum of respect. You pepper your responses with personal attacks and treat everything I present as deserving no consideration simply because I presented it. Why, other then to inflate your own ego, would you continue to engage in this activity with someone who you so obviously have no respect for?
Welcome to EC. 
Biodiversity is a necessity because I say so.
Thread over.
quote:
I have attempted to play by your rules. I have attempted to satisfy your demands. Yet you still refuse to treat me with any modicum of respect. You pepper your responses with personal attacks and treat everything I present as deserving no consideration simply because I presented it. Why, other then to inflate your own ego, would you continue to engage in this activity with someone who you so obviously have no respect for?
Because, despite me telling you politely over and over and over again what you must do to meet your burden of proof, you continue to whine about the unfairness of it all and how people are picking on you instead of just jumping to the same conclusion you have simply on your word that it would be better.
Really, do you honestly think, "There's an expert who backs me up," is sufficient proof of anything? Especially when my experts are both better known and more widely accepted than yours, exactly what basis is there for me to change my position?
Here's the deal: if you don't want to be ridiculed, don't do ridiculous things. Like, for example, the whole, "Gotcha! Relativist fallacy!" thing that turned out to be nothing more than you not understanding the fallacy. All you have to do is tell us why we should all adopt your particular worldview.
How hard is that?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
In any case I shall continue to attempt to satisfy your desires. This is an outline of the paper prepared by an unknown author. I have reviewed it and find it to be accurate. Original can be found here. Notes #28 is the one you care about.
quote:
I. The Main Issue:
Morally Considerable: Deserving of moral consideration; having interests that one ought to take into account.
What entities are morally considerable?
Goodpaster: All living things.
II. Four Distinctions: (Only the first 2 are important.)
1. Rights versus considerability. We wont consider rights here.
2. Considerability versus significance. We wont address here how much weight should be attached to the interests of different entities, but only whether any weight at all should be attached to them.
3. What sort of beings can (logically) be said to deserve moral consideration? versus What sort of beings in fact deserve moral consideration? We can ignore this distinction.
4. Operative versus regulative moral considerability: what things we are psychologically able to give consideration to, versus what things in themselves really deserve moral consideration.III. Some other criteria of moral considerability:
1) X deserves moral consideration iff: x is a rational being.
Problems: Infants, retarded adults, insane people, comatose or unconscious people.
2) X deserves moral consideration iff: x is a rational being or a potentially rational being.
Problems: Permanently retarded or insane people.
3) X deserves moral consideration iff: x is a sentient being.
Sentient: capable of sensations, esp.: capable of suffering/enjoyment.IV. Response to Feinberg (+ Singer, et al.)
Argument:
a. X deserves moral consideration only if x has interests. For:
- Otherwise, there is nothing to take into account.
- Only beings with interests can be represented.
- Only beings with interests can be beneficiaries.
b. Only sentient beings have interests. For:
- Nonsentient things have no desires or concerns, cant be happy or unhappy, and cant enjoy anything or suffer from anything. What would count as their interest?
c. Therefore, only sentient beings deserve moral consideration.
Objection:
Insentient organisms have an interest in maintaining their life.
Things can be good or bad for a plant.
These are not merely interests that we assign to them.
Pleasure and pain are merely mechanisms evolved to help protect organisms lives. Therefore, life is what is really important & valuable.V. Sentience and hedonism
Ethical hedonism and the sentience criterion of moral considerability are mutually supporting.VI. Objections to the life criterion
O1. This is mere Schweitzerian romanticism. [Apparently, this means: you are attributing sentience to all living things. This really isnt a serious objection. I dont know why it is even mentioned.]
Reply: This is (obviously) false.
O2. This implies that vegetables are equally important as us. [This isnt a serious objection either.]
Reply: No it doesnt. See section II, point 2, above.
O3. Life can serve as a criterion of moral considerability only if life can be precisely defined; and it cant.
Reply:
Why must life be precisely defined?
Living things can be defined as systems with a self-sustaining low-entropy state (i.e. selfsustaining organization and integration in the face of pressures toward high entropy).
O4. The above definition implies that the biosystem as a whole probably deserves moral consideration, and this is absurd.
Reply: This isnt absurd.
O5. We have no good way of determining what the interests or needs of non-sentient entities are.
Reply: We can often determine the interests of plants. For instance, you can tell your plant needs water when the leaves are turning brown.
O6. We cant live according to this ethic. We have to eat, protect ourselves from predators, &c.
Plus, it is natural to kill other living things.
Reply:
The criterion does not say that all living things are equally important. (See reply to O2.)
As to the last point: nature is amoral. Does this mean we should be amoral too? (No.)
Edit: Trying to clean it up. Naimah fucked around with this message on 05-19-2006 at 12:53 PM.
First, you're whining again. You did not adequately quote anything before; all you did was say, "There's some random dude who thinks like I do." Had you adequately presented this guy's "logic" before, we'd have moved on by now.
Second, with the whole argument laid out, it's possible to dispense with it. There are two flaws, one with the argument itself, and one with the fact that you present it in this discusson. The problem with the argument itself is that it's essentially circular. He creates criteria that inevitably lead to his preferred conclusion. Nor does he argue why those criteria are essential. For example, he does not consider the case where X is a human being. . .yet, oddly enough, he presumes that any outcome that excludes any class of human beings is unacceptable and therefore not a good criterion. In effect, he starts with the conclusion that all humans are deserving of moral consideration, and then works backwards to find the least common denominator in order to apply that to other living things. . .while making it seem as if he is, in fact, reasoning from basic principles. Flawed, if not outright dishonest.
In terms of presenting this argument in this particular discussion, we have this gem:
quote:
Considerability versus significance. We wont address here how much weight should be attached to the interests of different entities, but only whether any weight at all should be attached to them.
The whole point of your diatribe to save the bananas is that we have a duty to make sure they don't go away. This doesn't argue that in the least and specifically says so.
So what we have is a poorly argued, backwardly reasoned assertion that all living things deserve some type of moral consideration in varying, unspecified degrees but which also specifically admits that they aren't as important as human beings nor should their interests trump ours.
Again I ask: where does this prove your point that we have a duty to ensure no species goes extinct, and even if it does, why should we dump the status quo in favor of it?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
