quadraphonics:
You're glossing over the fact that my entire point in that post was that your definition of "speciesism" is ill-defined, and clearly constructed as a rhetorical cudgel.
No. I directly addressed that point, in detail. See above.
And the guy who looks around at, say, the standards of living in different parts of the world, notes that "white" people seem to be doing better in those terms than "black" people, and concludes that black people are inferior to white people, is making a reasoned assertion of superiority. I wouldn't agree with his reasoning, but are we supposed to disqualify him from the category "racist" just because he came up with some reasoning?
Possibly.
The problem is the word "inferior". From your example, it would be
reasonable in the absence of contradictory evidence to conclude that black people are in fact inferior to white people in terms of "doing better". What is not justified is the conclusion that black people are inferior
in every way to white people, or in all ways that are considered "important" under some set of criteria.
It's not racist to say that, on average, white people enjoy a higher standard of living when compared to black people. That's a statement supportable by reasoned, factual evidence.
If not, then how is it that we're supposed exclude you from the category of "speciesism?" And if you're going to continue to use the term to mean "prejudice" and apply it to those who disagree with you, then how can anyone have a reasoned conversation with you? You're going to reject any reasoning they present and insist that they're speaking from a position of uncritical prejudice, unless they agree with you.
Not at all.
If you read back in this thread, you'll see that where arguments have been presented about differences between species I have addressed them directly. It is only where people have said that humans ought to get special treatment
just because they are human that I've raised the issue of speciesism. And in all such cases, I have invited the poster concerned to come up with a better justification. Only a few have even attempted that. Most have chosen to stick their heads in the sand.
This is just another iteration of the standard "you're all sheeple, I'm a special snowflake" troll premise we see so frequently around here. It depends on the conceit that one can know the minds of others better than they do themselves, and so it is unerringly inflammatory and distracting. If you want to discuss the issues, then this is the last thing you want in your thread.
That's why I have been so careful to ask probing questions to try to get people to clearly express their reasons and not just their prejudices. What I have found, mostly, is that people either don't have reasons or else they use flawed reasoning to justify their meat eating. You can find numerous examples above.
Now, there is something to the observation that many people in a given society will fall in with the prevailing cultural attitudes without giving them much critical thought. But the thetorical tactic of equating the basic attitudes with the uncritical acceptance is a bridge too far - it is not the case that one ceases to be a speciesist the moment one gives some argument to justify one's position, any more than one ceases to be a racist the moment one gives some argument in justification of that. So we can see why that approach backfires: the first thing people do when confronted with such accusations, is to cook up some supporting arguments - which under your definition absolves them of speciesism even if they do not change their position in the slightest.
That's why in the end we must examine the supposedly supporting arguments so carefully. Name-calling won't resolve the issues. It takes a lot of patience, believe me, but fortunately I'm up to the task on this particular issue because I have a good acquaintance with all the usual supporting arguments.
My starting point is that we ought to treat like as like - to give equal consideration to the same (or similar) interests, whether those interests happen to be held by human beings or by an animal of some other species.
That "like as like" qualifier there - it leads to some vexatious aesthetic concerns, if you actually start digging under it.
To put it another way: it's exactly the same principle that everyone starts with. You add in the obvious dissimilarities between humans and various other animals, and you quickly notice that the usual hierarchy of species values expressed by humans tracks them: killing humans is a huge no-no, killing great apes is really bad, killing monkeys is still bad, chickens and cows can be killed but not mistreated, plants and insects can be systematically wiped out for reasons of simple momentary convenience, bacteria and algae don't even merit thinking about, etc.
Which is to say that you're down to a quibble, in the larger scheme of things - you want to move a small set of species a small jump up the hierarchy.
Suppose that we can convince people that killing and eating cows is morally wrong. Just cows for now, not sheep and pigs and fish. I don't think the millions of cows that would avoid being needlessly killed and eaten would "quibble" about that, though you might.
A similar argument: we ought not to even discuss whether to introduce gay marriage laws, because gay people will only ever be a minority of the population. Most of the people who want to marry can marry already, and we're only "quibbling" at the edges by arguing for inclusion of another small(ish) group. So, we're better off just going with the status quo. It's all just too hard and not worth effort (for heterosexuals, in particular).
You're confusing the question of something being obvious or self-evident, with it being mere prejudice. I.e., the exact reason that your example of restrictions on childrens rights is rhetorically attractive, is precisely that such differences are just obvious. They don't require any substantive reasoning, only cursory observation.
The age at which a particular child, or children in general, are capable and equipped to drive is not self-evident to me. Perhaps it is to you. I think that this is a matter that needs to be (and has been) argued out. "They shouldn't drive just because they are children" is prejudice.
All of which gets to why these overblown generalizations are a distraction: everybody here is a speciesist - nobody is taking the position of species equality.
You ought to explain this point to the many meat-eaters arguing in this thread, who are constantly accusing me of taking the position that, for example, a cow is equal to a human being (in every respect, presumably). I, like you, thought it was a simple enough point, but apparently for many it is not.
The differences are only over exactly how superior humans are, and what that amounts to when it comes to food production. And the basis for the general agreement, is exactly the same as in the case of children - it's just plain obvious from observing, say, chickens and humans that the two species are not equal in the relevant sense. We'd never let a chicken drive a car, or own property, or vote in an election, and nobody (including yourself) seems to feel any need to provide any detailed reasoning to support that - which I guess makes everyone here (including yourself) a speciesist even in your prejudicial sense.
I am capable of and willing to provide detailed reasoning as to why a chicken should not vote in an election or hold a driver's licence, if required. In fact, I think I have even had to go to the extent of actually making such an argument for an apparently-confused meat eater earlier in this thread.
In comparison, when I have asked some of the meat eaters here what facts morally distinguish the right of a human not be to killed and eaten from the rights of a chicken or a cow (or, more accurately, the fact that apparently they have no such right at all), not only have the meat eaters not felt the need to give a reason, but when pushed they have been totally unable to give one that stands up to scrutiny. Some of them have even struggled on much easier questions of distinctions between animals and human beings - ones that no doubt you and I would not normally feel require a detailed explanation.
That you don't like the arguments, or that you have managed to troll participants here into arguing such poorly, doesn't mean that the arguments don't exist out there. I'll leave anyone interested to spend 30 seconds on Google....
It's really not my fault if other participants argue poorly. Am I supposed to argue both sides of the issue? Am I supposed to do their work for them?
I really wish that some of them
would spend 30 seconds on Google and produce something at least moderately coherent on the topic.
What I seem to get instead is mostly accusations that I'm clinically insane and/or a zealot with a special type of religious belief and/or that I'm a troll for daring to raise a moral question that some people feel uncomfortable about.
I.e., how are we to know that you didn't come by your own position through uncritical prejudice, and then later marshall some justifications in defense of that? Certainly, that would be the usual way that vegetarians (and people in general) operate. And it would make your charges of speciesism as applicable to you as to anyone.
I'd venture that most people come to their moral opinions via an emotional route rather than a reasoned one. Sometimes they become aware of an issue via reasoned arguments, but to actually change your own views in the area of morality requires more commitment than just an intellectual one, I think.
I always think of the quote (don't know who said it) that goes along the lines of: you can't argue somebody out of a position that they haven't been argued into.
Many people adopt stances on moral issues without any critical thought at all. Call that prejudice or gut feeling or whatever. Smart people, especially those who strive for harmony and consistency in their views and opinions, then often do go on to marshall justifications. The best are also open to changing their minds if the justifications they find don't pass muster. And they try to avoid confirmation bias as far as possible.
I
hope that, however I arrived at my views on vegetarianism, they are now solidly grounded in valid, reasoned justifications, and that I'm somewhat past the point of "uncritical prejudice". I'm content to let
intelligent readers judge that for themselves.
Nobody is fudging anything there - the relevant sense of "equality" was obvious throughout. You're just injecting a canned talking point in some kind of cheap blogsmanship maneuver. I'll thank you to drop this line of distraction, and also delete your subsequent accusations of mistakes on my part, which you addressed to others. That sort of thing being a petty, personal attack, and an exceedingly cheap and childish one at that.
Oops! There you go again. Why does every post of yours have to end with a petty personal attack? You often start off so well, but after a while it's as if you just can't contain yourself any more. Of course, I have noted your snide remarks scattered at various points throughout your post. I choose to rise above those, for the most part.
I'm curious, then - what is the unequivocable, doubt-annihilating information that has made it morally acceptable to treat plants as inferior to animals, and all the other inequality relations in your hierarchy of species rights and values?
I don't actually give plants zero moral value, and I'm not sure if I'd consider every plant to be inferior to every animal either.
You'll probably need to be more specific. But, I'm afraid you might be disappointed if I don't have a single awe-inspiring fact that will make this issue a no-brainer for you. Some things are inherently complicated.
You've given reasons why you don't think people should kill animals for food. But I haven't heard any justifications for the manifold moral inequality relations in your species hierarchy - and given that you've been emphatic that "it's obvious" is insufficient, that would seem to make you a prejudiced, uncritical speciesist.
What, specifically, do you want to know about my "manifold moral inequality relations"? Which ones in particular are you referring to?