Advertisement
Hi everyone! We are having a gathering this Sunday in Santa Monica (7-20-08; see the event listing nearby on this tribe page). I hope to see you there! Whether or not you come to Sunday's meeting, feel free to carry on a discussion by posting your own ideas here, either before or after Sunday's meeting.
Here's the "official" wording of this topic, which was the winner of the email voting this week, by a very slim margin:
ARE YOU AN ETHICAL 'SPECIESIST' OR ANTHROPOMORPHIST? The preference for the human species is inherent to nearly all moral systems and traditions, both those invented by philosophers and those practiced by people everywhere. Is this arbitrary or is it justifiable? How can we even answer this? If we say, for example, that full moral status and rights are conferred to all those who are self-aware, then where do we draw the line? Chimps would appear to get rights, but where does it stop? If we say that full moral status and rights belong only to those who are rational agents or are able to make social contracts, then we cut out many mentally disabled humans, as well as infants and young children. In addition, we may be forced to include (for better or worse) the hoard of artificial intelligences that, if futurists and science fiction writers are to be believed, will soon be among us. If we say that full moral status and rights belong to everything that is alive, then we are obliged to protect the life of every bacterium with the same rigor as we protect the life of a human. How can we develop a coherent, consistent, non-arbitrary ethical system that does not outrage our moral consciences? Is that even possible or wise? -----------------------------------
For the curious, here are the full vote-by-email results for the month, which are astoundingly close:
1) Are You An Ethical 'Speciesist' Or Anthropomorphist? (19.5 Votes)
2) Is Science Converging On The Truth? (18.75 Votes)
3) How Important Is It For Us To Be A Space-Faring Civilization? (18.5 Votes)
4) "A Foolish Consistency Is The Hobgoblin Of Little Minds…" (19.0 Votes)
5) The Meaning Of Patriotism (19.0 Votes)
Each topic stays on the list until it wins or consistently receives a paltry number of votes. You may have noticed that the votes do not come in whole numbers. This is not because fractions of a person turn in votes, but because you receive one vote for your top choice, a half vote for your 2nd choice (if you had one), a quarter vote for your 3rd choice, and so on.
See you Sunday!
Brian
Here's the "official" wording of this topic, which was the winner of the email voting this week, by a very slim margin:
ARE YOU AN ETHICAL 'SPECIESIST' OR ANTHROPOMORPHIST? The preference for the human species is inherent to nearly all moral systems and traditions, both those invented by philosophers and those practiced by people everywhere. Is this arbitrary or is it justifiable? How can we even answer this? If we say, for example, that full moral status and rights are conferred to all those who are self-aware, then where do we draw the line? Chimps would appear to get rights, but where does it stop? If we say that full moral status and rights belong only to those who are rational agents or are able to make social contracts, then we cut out many mentally disabled humans, as well as infants and young children. In addition, we may be forced to include (for better or worse) the hoard of artificial intelligences that, if futurists and science fiction writers are to be believed, will soon be among us. If we say that full moral status and rights belong to everything that is alive, then we are obliged to protect the life of every bacterium with the same rigor as we protect the life of a human. How can we develop a coherent, consistent, non-arbitrary ethical system that does not outrage our moral consciences? Is that even possible or wise? -----------------------------------
For the curious, here are the full vote-by-email results for the month, which are astoundingly close:
1) Are You An Ethical 'Speciesist' Or Anthropomorphist? (19.5 Votes)
2) Is Science Converging On The Truth? (18.75 Votes)
3) How Important Is It For Us To Be A Space-Faring Civilization? (18.5 Votes)
4) "A Foolish Consistency Is The Hobgoblin Of Little Minds…" (19.0 Votes)
5) The Meaning Of Patriotism (19.0 Votes)
Each topic stays on the list until it wins or consistently receives a paltry number of votes. You may have noticed that the votes do not come in whole numbers. This is not because fractions of a person turn in votes, but because you receive one vote for your top choice, a half vote for your 2nd choice (if you had one), a quarter vote for your 3rd choice, and so on.
See you Sunday!
Brian
posted by:
|
Los Angeles
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Speciesism / Anthropomorphism-- Is It Justified?
Sat, July 19, 2008 - 6:10 PMOPTIONAL READING FOR THIS TOPIC: Note that the discussion this Sunday will focus on the question, and what our answers to it mean, rather than specifically on the text of the readings. However, if you'd like to inspire and stimulate your interest or thinking on the matter, or clarify the ideas and debates involved, read or skim the following article:
plato.stanford.edu/entries/...onmental/
This article, "Environmental Ethics," from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is precisely on this month's question The entire article is definitely worth reading, though it is long. Most relevant to our discussion are the following parts: Section One (about 2 pages), Section Two (about 4.5 pages), and Section Three (about 9 pages). We have only one reading this month, but there's enough here to keep you busy. -
-
Re: Speciesism / Anthropomorphism-- Is It Justified?
Tue, September 30, 2008 - 9:19 PM[Typographical note: This web site does not accommodate italicization, for which I will substitute CAPITALIZATION.]
Environmentalists argue for preservation of the natural environment, either for OUR benefit, or for NATURE’S benefit, in which latter approach they ascribe intrinsic value to (lower) animals. Even if inherent value were possible, however, that which is intrinsically valuable would be, not sentient creatures, per se, but rather PLEASURE. But PAIN is DISVALUE. And animal life is predominately miserable. So inherent value would be enhanced, and the ANIMALS would be better off, if they did not exist. Hence our maintaining their lives is justifiable only for OUR sake.
I am an anthropocentric environmentalist: I favor protecting the environment because it makes the world more habitable for us (man). But I oppose gratuitous human cruelty to animals, for THEIR welfare (I disbelieve in intrinsic value—I just happen to have an aversion to our committing such maltreatment).
– Richard J. Eisner (9/30/2008; 1-818-343-0123; richard@1800suethem.com)
-
