Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#301
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:44:18 GMT, Dutch wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:07:32 +0100, irate wrote: On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 01:23:12 GMT, Dutch wrote: irate vegan wrote: On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:00:10 GMT, Dutch wrote: Rupert wrote: On Jul 16, 7:37 pm, Dutch wrote: Rupert wrote: On Jul 16, 4:15 pm, Dutch wrote: Rupert wrote: I've given my argument yet again and demonstrated that your criticisms of it are unsatisfactory. Stating that your opponents must disprove your assertions is not a convincing argument. I would also add that that essay, moralstat99.doc, which you like so much, endorses this argument of mine. I showed where in the thread "The myth of food production efficiency...", in conversation with Ball. Are you referring to the suggestion that we may have a prima facie moral obligation to consume a vegetarian diet? No, of course not. Here is the quote. "When we affirm that some objects have inherent value while others do not, we treat them differently with regard to moral status. If this differential treatment is to be sound and not arbitrary, it must be justifiable by some relevant difference. This requirement is warranted by the Principle of Formal Equality which can hardly be avoided if we are to think consistently in practical matters. Presumably, the best way of formulating this principle is as follows: Cases which are relevantly similar, should be treated in a similar manner; a differential treatment requires a relevant difference. Applied to the question of moral status, this should be spelled out as follows: If we ascribe moral status to some objects and not to others, the first objects must have some relevant property to the required degree, and the other objects must lack this property, or at least not have it to the degree required. If this property is a necessary condition for moral status, its absence in other objects will be a sufficient condition for denying moral status to them; while if it is only a sufficient condition, it must be lacking in other objects, and they must have no other properties in addition which are sufficient conditions for being ascribed moral status." The author goes on to lay the groundwork for his conclusion By denying the antecedent, no less. Exactly right. No, exactly wrong, grossly incorrect. The groundwork is rigorous philosophical argument. I've shown where he denies the antecedent to get his point accepted, which is anything but "rigorous philosophical argument." 14 pages later, on page 20, as follows: "The second consequence which follows from this position is that there will be a relevant difference between human and non-human beings, which can justify a differential treatment with regard to the ascription of moral status. Ipse dixit and false. The author must define what this "relevant differences" is, AND that it justifies disrespectful treatment. Humans have a property which other animals lack, notably the capability of being moral agents, and if this property is accepted to be a necessary condition for the ascription of moral status, 1) If animals have the capacity of moral agency, then they have moral status. then its absence in other animals 2) Animals don't have the capacity of moral agency will be a sufficient condition for denying moral status to them." Therefore (3) they have no moral status. Any argument that denies the antecedent to gain acceptance must always be rejected as specious. 1) If animals have the capacity of moral agency, then they have moral status. 2) Animals don't have the capacity of moral agency therefore 3) they have no moral status. or 1) If a, then c 2) Not a therefore 3) not c All bullshit. No, it's a simple syllogism to show where the author denies the antecedent to get his point accepted. He doesn't I've shown that he does. There's no getting away from it. Moral agency and moral status are not one and the same. I'm not saying they are. You're barking up the wrong tree. Not at all. Moral agents are distinct from moral patients as lawmakers capable of enduring the consequences of their wrong actions. What I'm saying is that a lack of moral agency doesn't show a lack of moral status. He doesn't say that it does. Yes, he says exactly that by writing, "Humans have a property which other animals lack, notably the capability of being moral agents, and if this property is accepted to be a necessary condition for the ascription of moral status, then its absence in other animals will be a sufficient condition for denying moral status to them." Beings can still have moral status without having moral agency. The author concedes this by writing, Of course he concedes it. No, he doesn't. What he does is deny them moral status on the basis that they lack moral agency, but he then goes on to contradict himself in the following passage below this paragraph by elevating primates to moral persons. "Theoretically, there might be other moral persons also, but there seem to be none, excepting perhaps some of our closest relatives among the primates." I then wrote, "It follows, then, that apes hold rights due to his fact that they "are moral persons."" and you replied, "Possibly. I would hold in fact that this is so plausible that apes should be granted basic rights." Dutch 7 July 2007 http://tinyurl.com/328k8h Yes, all reasonable.. Then, not only does the author fail to debunk the argument from marginal cases, he ascribes rights to non-human animals by elevating them to rights-holding moral persons, and you agree with him. The capacity for moral agency is the basis for full moral status. You've moved the goalposts from "moral status" to "full moral status" I haven't moved the goalposts I've shown that you have. You initially started out with "moral persons" and then widened the goalposts to "*full* moral persons." That's a perfect "shifting the goalposts" example. but that effort still doesn't explain how a lack in moral agency demonstrates a lack in moral status. The capacity for moral agency is the high water mark of sentience, it is a part of the set of higher cognitive functions which set humans apart from all other species. Even if true, it still doesn't follow that beings with a lesser cognitive ability than ours have no moral status, and that our higher cognitive abilities somehow justifies using them as tools in the laboratory and farmed foods. "Animals can be "moral patients", in a similar way as minor children or people in comas. They can hold rights against us, but we can't hold rights against them." Dutch 24 Sep 2005 http://tinyurl.com/cpxhx I'm going to tell you this once, stop the nonsense of dragging up quotes from years ago or I'll just ignore you. Your quotes which advocate rights for animals are past and present, and I shall continue to bring them here to show that you're an immoral, lying imbecile. Why do you advocate rights for animals while advocating that they be farmed and slaughtered for nothing more than your taste for meat? Why do you promote vivisection on them while knowing them to be rights-holders? If animals hold any rights against us at all, the minimum must be to be spared the maximum of all possible wrongs. |
#302
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Jul 17, 5:30 am, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote: On Jul 16, 7:31 pm, Dutch wrote: Rupert wrote: On Jul 16, 4:15 pm, Dutch wrote: Rupert wrote: I've given my argument yet again and demonstrated that your criticisms of it are unsatisfactory. Stating that your opponents must disprove your assertions is not a convincing argument. There's more to it than that. I've elaborated on why the burden of proof lies where I claim it does. You've done no such thing. You (and DeGrazia) can't support your assertions so you attempt to force others to supply proof of the contrary, its the oldest trick in the book. If you expect for one single moment that such a tactic is going to meet with any success you are dreaming. All it does is show to everyone that your position cannot be argued on its merits. I've explained exactly why the burden of proof lies where it does. Everyone who proposes a point of view has an opportunity and an obligation to provide supporting arguments for that view, if they hope to persuade anyone that their point of view is worthwhile. Simply shifting the entire burden to the other side is lazy and indicative of a failed position. I've given my argument plenty of times. I stated it very clearly in my talk which you read. It's the argument from marginal cases. It requires a response. No adequate response has been forthcoming. Ball is saying there is no "formal principle of justice". In that case, there would have been no reason why advocates of slavery couldn't have just said "blacks have lower moral status than whites, and that's all there is to it." He's maintaining that somehow or other the case for the abolition of slavery was made without the formal principle of justice. He's given no explanation of how. You're making a big song and dance about this essay you like so much. Yes, it's an interesting essay, but it makes no real attempt to explain the crucial notion of "capability". You don't understand the notion either, you've just swallowed it hook, line, and sinker because you think it supports your position. Saying "the burden is on you" just means "the argument from marginal cases requires a reply". Unlike Ball, at some level you realize this, because you're not content to just endlessly say "no, it requires no reply, you're just shifting the burden", eventually you realize you have to actually make an effort to rebut it. You think you've got a rebuttal, but it's very weak. I've explained why. We can talk about it more if you like. Those who judge two different cases differently have to supply a morally relevant difference between the two cases. The burden is on them to show that the morally relevant difference exists. Moralstat99 does just that, systematically and convincingly. The crucial notion of "capability" is left completely without explanation. You're not reading the text critically. It's reasonable to say "Oh, that's an interesting idea, I guess I'll have a look at the thesis he refers to and see if there's anything in it". It's not reasonable to say "He's demolished the argument from marginal cases". I'm quite sure he himself would acknowledge that he hasn't given an adequate explanation of the notion of "capability". When you encounter something which you think is congenial to your position, you completely suspend your critical faculties. It is argued that "sentience" (including advanced intelligence) is the key determinant for attributing moral significance to organisms, and that rather than their being simply two categories, humans and animals, as your argument implies, there are actually a plethora of levels of sentience, humans being the highest, followed by great apes, other mammals, birds, fish, and on down to insects, microscopic organisms and plants. Moral significance is assigned according to the degree of sentience possessed by each species. This explains the normal view of humans and animals and it even accounts for the way you explain *your* attitude towards the animals you kill in you daily life. Cognitive capacities clearly *are* morally relevant in some contexts. Species is not. He's trying to get around this by saying that all humans have some special property which nonhuman animals don't have, but he hasn't given an adequate account of what that property is. If this weren't so, there would have been no way to argue for the emancipation of black people. Emancipation succeeded because advocates correctly argued out that there is no difference in "sentience" (including advanced intelligence) between white people and black people. Proponents of slavery had no valid response. The argument from marginal cases is analogous to this. Those who argue that animals and humans should receive equal consideration cannot make the argument that animals and humans possess equal sentience, that is why you resort to shifting the burden. The author of the essay you admire so much, and every other serious scholar in animal ethics, would agree with me. You should learn to avoid this little fallacy, it makes you look silly. It's not a fallacy. Just stating the facts. The fact that you don't realize they are facts is what makes you look silly. Those who want to argue that being human gives you a special moral status have to explain why. Some think it can be done, some can't. I just did it, re-read moralstat99. It is based on "sentience" (including advanced intelligence). The actions of every human, including you, confirms the correctness of this very intuitive conclusion. I have read it. It's not good enough. No real attempt is made to explain the crucial notion of "capability". To say DeGrazia does not support his assertions is palpable nonsense. As you said to Derek, you're not evaluating the text honestly. He goes to great lengths to support his contention that his opponents have the burden of proof. As I stated, that is not the same as making a positive argument for one's position. It's a reasonable way to proceed, and it's not essentially different to the way in which emancipation of black people was argued for. You can deny it all you want, but there's an argument here that has to be seriously engaged with, and none of you are doing that. You can deny it all you want, but there is *no* argument left that has not been adequately dealt with, and if you were not so heavily emotionally invested in your "Animal Liberation" agenda you might be able to see that. Not a single argument of mine has been adequately dealt with, and if you were not so heavily emotionally invested in your anti-AR agenda you might be able to see that. Ball's alternative account of where the burden of proof lies has serious problems, which I have explained. He has given no satisfactory response. I've provided a coherent point of view which refutes the argument from marginal cases. It lays out a solid foundation which explains rights and our relationship with animals. You've given someone else's attempted rebuttal of the argument from marginal cases, which we've talked about a bit and we'll talk about some more. The only thing left for you to say is that moralstat99 thoroughly and convincingly refutes the Argument from Marginal Cases, one of the fundamental pillars of the Animal Rights movement. The good news is, Rupert, life goes on, the sun will still shine, brighter in the light of reason. As discussed above and elsewhere, this is complete crap. I've been trying to be polite, unlike you, and express my objections in a neutral, open-minded, measured way. There's obviously no point. You've got the idea that this is some kind of unanswerable, knock-down refutation. That's not the response of someone who's evaluating the text critically and honestly. He's introduced a term "capability", which he says is explained further in someone else's thesis, and can be made the basis of an answer to the argument from marginal cases. He hasn't made any real attempt to explain the term. It's just a promissory note, nothing more. We'll have a look at the thesis and see what we find. |
#303
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Jul 17, 5:57 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Dutch wrote: Rupert wrote: On Jul 16, 7:31 pm, Dutch wrote: Rupert wrote: On Jul 16, 4:15 pm, Dutch wrote: Rupert wrote: I've given my argument yet again and demonstrated that your criticisms of it are unsatisfactory. Stating that your opponents must disprove your assertions is not a convincing argument. There's more to it than that. I've elaborated on why the burden of proof lies where I claim it does. You've done no such thing. You (and DeGrazia) can't support your assertions so you attempt to force others to supply proof of the contrary, its the oldest trick in the book. If you expect for one single moment that such a tactic is going to meet with any success you are dreaming. All it does is show to everyone that your position cannot be argued on its merits. I've explained exactly why the burden of proof lies where it does. Everyone who proposes a point of view has an opportunity and an obligation to provide supporting arguments for that view, if they hope to persuade anyone that their point of view is worthwhile. Simply shifting the entire burden to the other side is lazy and indicative of a failed position. By now, it's apparent the "ar" side can't support their fundamental proposition, and thus don't even bother to try. The dishonesty comes in acting as if the proposition is proved, and generally accepted; an axiom, in other words. It is not. Good other points below. What's apparent is that you are incapable of engaging with the arguments in any serious way. Dutch has at least showed us an essay which acknowledges that there is an argument that needs to be engaged with and makes a serious attempt to do so. Those who judge two different cases differently have to supply a morally relevant difference between the two cases. The burden is on them to show that the morally relevant difference exists. Moralstat99 does just that, systematically and convincingly. It is argued that "sentience" (including advanced intelligence) is the key determinant for attributing moral significance to organisms, and that rather than their being simply two categories, humans and animals, as your argument implies, there are actually a plethora of levels of sentience, humans being the highest, followed by great apes, other mammals, birds, fish, and on down to insects, microscopic organisms and plants. Moral significance is assigned according to the degree of sentience possessed by each species. This explains the normal view of humans and animals and it even accounts for the way you explain *your* attitude towards the animals you kill in you daily life. If this weren't so, there would have been no way to argue for the emancipation of black people. Emancipation succeeded because advocates correctly argued out that there is no difference in "sentience" (including advanced intelligence) between white people and black people. Proponents of slavery had no valid response. Those who argue that animals and humans should receive equal consideration cannot make the argument that animals and humans possess equal sentience, that is why you resort to shifting the burden. The author of the essay you admire so much, and every other serious scholar in animal ethics, would agree with me. You should learn to avoid this little fallacy, it makes you look silly. Those who want to argue that being human gives you a special moral status have to explain why. Some think it can be done, some can't. I just did it, re-read moralstat99. It is based on "sentience" (including advanced intelligence). The actions of every human, including you, confirms the correctness of this very intuitive conclusion. To say DeGrazia does not support his assertions is palpable nonsense. As you said to Derek, you're not evaluating the text honestly. He goes to great lengths to support his contention that his opponents have the burden of proof. As I stated, that is not the same as making a positive argument for one's position. You can deny it all you want, but there's an argument here that has to be seriously engaged with, and none of you are doing that. You can deny it all you want, but there is *no* argument left that has not been adequately dealt with, and if you were not so heavily emotionally invested in your "Animal Liberation" agenda you might be able to see that. Ball's alternative account of where the burden of proof lies has serious problems, which I have explained. He has given no satisfactory response. I've provided a coherent point of view which refutes the argument from marginal cases. It lays out a solid foundation which explains rights and our relationship with animals. You've given someone else's attempted rebuttal of the argument from marginal cases, which we've talked about a bit and we'll talk about some more. The only thing left for you to say is that moralstat99 thoroughly and convincingly refutes the Argument from Marginal Cases, one of the fundamental pillars of the Animal Rights movement. The good news is, Rupert, life goes on, the sun will still shine, brighter in the light of reason.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
#304
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Jul 17, 6:00 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the lying skirt-boy wrote: On Jul 16, 7:31 pm, Dutch wrote: Rupert wrote: On Jul 16, 4:15 pm, Dutch wrote: Rupert wrote: I've given my argument yet again and demonstrated that your criticisms of it are unsatisfactory. Stating that your opponents must disprove your assertions is not a convincing argument. There's more to it than that. I've elaborated on why the burden of proof lies where I claim it does. You've done no such thing. You (and DeGrazia) can't support your assertions so you attempt to force others to supply proof of the contrary, its the oldest trick in the book. If you expect for one single moment that such a tactic is going to meet with any success you are dreaming. All it does is show to everyone that your position cannot be argued on its merits. I've explained exactly why the burden of proof lies where it does. You haven't, rupie. You have merely, and emptily, asserted where it lies. No. I have given an argument. And I've pointed out the inadequacies in your criticisms of the argument. And then I've done it again. And again. And again. And it still doesn't stop you from mindlessly blabbering that I've just made an unsupported assertion. You're obviously not capable of engaging with the argument in a serious way. Fine, not my problem. You are wrong. The burden of supporting your claim that animals are due equal moral consideration lies on YOU and your other failure "aras". We know you can't meet it. |
#305
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 17, 5:30 am, Dutch wrote: Rupert wrote: On Jul 16, 7:31 pm, Dutch wrote: Rupert wrote: On Jul 16, 4:15 pm, Dutch wrote: Rupert wrote: I've given my argument yet again and demonstrated that your criticisms of it are unsatisfactory. Stating that your opponents must disprove your assertions is not a convincing argument. There's more to it than that. I've elaborated on why the burden of proof lies where I claim it does. You've done no such thing. You (and DeGrazia) can't support your assertions so you attempt to force others to supply proof of the contrary, its the oldest trick in the book. If you expect for one single moment that such a tactic is going to meet with any success you are dreaming. All it does is show to everyone that your position cannot be argued on its merits. I've explained exactly why the burden of proof lies where it does. Everyone who proposes a point of view has an opportunity and an obligation to provide supporting arguments for that view, if they hope to persuade anyone that their point of view is worthwhile. Simply shifting the entire burden to the other side is lazy and indicative of a failed position. I've given my argument plenty of times. I stated it very clearly in my talk which you read. It's the argument from marginal cases. It requires a response. No adequate response has been forthcoming. An adequate response has been provided, you rejected it, the only reason you can give is that you don't grasp what "capability" means. I submit that something in your mind is blocking you from understanding a very simple word. Ball is saying there is no "formal principle of justice". In that case, there would have been no reason why advocates of slavery couldn't have just said "blacks have lower moral status than whites, and that's all there is to it." He's maintaining that somehow or other the case for the abolition of slavery was made without the formal principle of justice. He's given no explanation of how. You're making a big song and dance about this essay you like so much. Yes, it's an interesting essay, but it makes no real attempt to explain the crucial notion of "capability". You don't understand the notion either, you've just swallowed it hook, line, and sinker because you think it supports your position. Saying "the burden is on you" just means "the argument from marginal cases requires a reply". Unlike Ball, at some level you realize this, because you're not content to just endlessly say "no, it requires no reply, you're just shifting the burden", eventually you realize you have to actually make an effort to rebut it. You think you've got a rebuttal, but it's very weak. I've explained why. We can talk about it more if you like. Talk all you want, the rebuttal along with the essay is thorough and convincing. Those who judge two different cases differently have to supply a morally relevant difference between the two cases. The burden is on them to show that the morally relevant difference exists. Moralstat99 does just that, systematically and convincingly. The crucial notion of "capability" is left completely without explanation. It's OBVIOUS what capability means for Gods sake. You're not reading the text critically. It's reasonable to say "Oh, that's an interesting idea, I guess I'll have a look at the thesis he refers to and see if there's anything in it". It's not reasonable to say "He's demolished the argument from marginal cases". I'm quite sure he himself would acknowledge that he hasn't given an adequate explanation of the notion of "capability". When you encounter something which you think is congenial to your position, you completely suspend your critical faculties. Bullshit, when YOU encounter something antagonistic to YOUR position you somehow lose the ability to comprehend simple language. It is argued that "sentience" (including advanced intelligence) is the key determinant for attributing moral significance to organisms, and that rather than their being simply two categories, humans and animals, as your argument implies, there are actually a plethora of levels of sentience, humans being the highest, followed by great apes, other mammals, birds, fish, and on down to insects, microscopic organisms and plants. Moral significance is assigned according to the degree of sentience possessed by each species. This explains the normal view of humans and animals and it even accounts for the way you explain *your* attitude towards the animals you kill in you daily life. Cognitive capacities clearly *are* morally relevant in some contexts. Species is not. He's trying to get around this by saying that all humans have some special property which nonhuman animals don't have, but he hasn't given an adequate account of what that property is. Yes he has. If this weren't so, there would have been no way to argue for the emancipation of black people. Emancipation succeeded because advocates correctly argued out that there is no difference in "sentience" (including advanced intelligence) between white people and black people. Proponents of slavery had no valid response. The argument from marginal cases is analogous to this. Except that it FAILS, while the argument for emancipation succeeds. Those who argue that animals and humans should receive equal consideration cannot make the argument that animals and humans possess equal sentience, that is why you resort to shifting the burden. The author of the essay you admire so much, and every other serious scholar in animal ethics, would agree with me. You should learn to avoid this little fallacy, it makes you look silly. It's not a fallacy. Just stating the facts. The fact that you don't realize they are facts is what makes you look silly. No, the fact that you don't recognize a basic fallacy makes YOU look silly, it also makes you a presumptuous twit, but we knew that. Those who want to argue that being human gives you a special moral status have to explain why. Some think it can be done, some can't. I just did it, re-read moralstat99. It is based on "sentience" (including advanced intelligence). The actions of every human, including you, confirms the correctness of this very intuitive conclusion. I have read it. It's not good enough. No real attempt is made to explain the crucial notion of "capability". LOL! A human child has the capability to become a moral agent, a baby chick does not. To say DeGrazia does not support his assertions is palpable nonsense. As you said to Derek, you're not evaluating the text honestly. He goes to great lengths to support his contention that his opponents have the burden of proof. As I stated, that is not the same as making a positive argument for one's position. It's a reasonable way to proceed, and it's not essentially different to the way in which emancipation of black people was argued for. Advocates of emancipation successfully described what were the basis for rights and successfully argued that blacks held those attributes, as whites do. You can deny it all you want, but there's an argument here that has to be seriously engaged with, and none of you are doing that. You can deny it all you want, but there is *no* argument left that has not been adequately dealt with, and if you were not so heavily emotionally invested in your "Animal Liberation" agenda you might be able to see that. Not a single argument of mine has been adequately dealt with, and if you were not so heavily emotionally invested in your anti-AR agenda you might be able to see that. I'm not invested at all. I don't belong to an "anti-AR" group like you belong to an "Animal Liberation" group, in fact you're the local president or some such thing. I don't advertise myself as a paid lecturer on "anti-AR". I don't have a reputation to defend. YOU are the one who is heavily invested, YOU. You can't see ANYthing that contradicts your agenda. Ball's alternative account of where the burden of proof lies has serious problems, which I have explained. He has given no satisfactory response. I've provided a coherent point of view which refutes the argument from marginal cases. It lays out a solid foundation which explains rights and our relationship with animals. You've given someone else's attempted rebuttal of the argument from marginal cases, which we've talked about a bit and we'll talk about some more. The only thing left for you to say is that moralstat99 thoroughly and convincingly refutes the Argument from Marginal Cases, one of the fundamental pillars of the Animal Rights movement. The good news is, Rupert, life goes on, the sun will still shine, brighter in the light of reason. As discussed above and elsewhere, this is complete crap. I've been trying to be polite, unlike you, and express my objections in a neutral, open-minded, measured way. No you haven't, your arrogance isn't polite, you're smarmy, and you're CLEARLY not neutral, and you're NOT open minded. You're full of shit. Your mind is CLOSED for business. There's obviously no point. You've got the idea that this is some kind of unanswerable, knock-down refutation. That's not the response of someone who's evaluating the text critically and honestly. He's introduced a term "capability", which he says is explained further in someone else's thesis, and can be made the basis of an answer to the argument from marginal cases. He hasn't made any real attempt to explain the term. It's just a promissory note, nothing more. We'll have a look at the thesis and see what we find. Look all you want, the word is transparent. |
#306
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 17, 5:57 am, Rudy Canoza wrote: Dutch wrote: Rupert wrote: On Jul 16, 7:31 pm, Dutch wrote: Rupert wrote: On Jul 16, 4:15 pm, Dutch wrote: Rupert wrote: I've given my argument yet again and demonstrated that your criticisms of it are unsatisfactory. Stating that your opponents must disprove your assertions is not a convincing argument. There's more to it than that. I've elaborated on why the burden of proof lies where I claim it does. You've done no such thing. You (and DeGrazia) can't support your assertions so you attempt to force others to supply proof of the contrary, its the oldest trick in the book. If you expect for one single moment that such a tactic is going to meet with any success you are dreaming. All it does is show to everyone that your position cannot be argued on its merits. I've explained exactly why the burden of proof lies where it does. Everyone who proposes a point of view has an opportunity and an obligation to provide supporting arguments for that view, if they hope to persuade anyone that their point of view is worthwhile. Simply shifting the entire burden to the other side is lazy and indicative of a failed position. By now, it's apparent the "ar" side can't support their fundamental proposition, and thus don't even bother to try. The dishonesty comes in acting as if the proposition is proved, and generally accepted; an axiom, in other words. It is not. Good other points below. What's apparent is that you are incapable of engaging with the arguments in any serious way. What's apparent is the arguments for "ar" aren't serious, not least because they assume the fundamental thing they must show. Those who judge two different cases differently have to supply a morally relevant difference between the two cases. The burden is on them to show that the morally relevant difference exists. Moralstat99 does just that, systematically and convincingly. It is argued that "sentience" (including advanced intelligence) is the key determinant for attributing moral significance to organisms, and that rather than their being simply two categories, humans and animals, as your argument implies, there are actually a plethora of levels of sentience, humans being the highest, followed by great apes, other mammals, birds, fish, and on down to insects, microscopic organisms and plants. Moral significance is assigned according to the degree of sentience possessed by each species. This explains the normal view of humans and animals and it even accounts for the way you explain *your* attitude towards the animals you kill in you daily life. If this weren't so, there would have been no way to argue for the emancipation of black people. Emancipation succeeded because advocates correctly argued out that there is no difference in "sentience" (including advanced intelligence) between white people and black people. Proponents of slavery had no valid response. Those who argue that animals and humans should receive equal consideration cannot make the argument that animals and humans possess equal sentience, that is why you resort to shifting the burden. The author of the essay you admire so much, and every other serious scholar in animal ethics, would agree with me. You should learn to avoid this little fallacy, it makes you look silly. Those who want to argue that being human gives you a special moral status have to explain why. Some think it can be done, some can't. I just did it, re-read moralstat99. It is based on "sentience" (including advanced intelligence). The actions of every human, including you, confirms the correctness of this very intuitive conclusion. To say DeGrazia does not support his assertions is palpable nonsense. As you said to Derek, you're not evaluating the text honestly. He goes to great lengths to support his contention that his opponents have the burden of proof. As I stated, that is not the same as making a positive argument for one's position. You can deny it all you want, but there's an argument here that has to be seriously engaged with, and none of you are doing that. You can deny it all you want, but there is *no* argument left that has not been adequately dealt with, and if you were not so heavily emotionally invested in your "Animal Liberation" agenda you might be able to see that. Ball's alternative account of where the burden of proof lies has serious problems, which I have explained. He has given no satisfactory response. I've provided a coherent point of view which refutes the argument from marginal cases. It lays out a solid foundation which explains rights and our relationship with animals. You've given someone else's attempted rebuttal of the argument from marginal cases, which we've talked about a bit and we'll talk about some more. The only thing left for you to say is that moralstat99 thoroughly and convincingly refutes the Argument from Marginal Cases, one of the fundamental pillars of the Animal Rights movement. The good news is, Rupert, life goes on, the sun will still shine, brighter in the light of reason.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
#307
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 17, 6:00 am, Rudy Canoza wrote: Rupert the lying skirt-boy wrote: On Jul 16, 7:31 pm, Dutch wrote: Rupert wrote: On Jul 16, 4:15 pm, Dutch wrote: Rupert wrote: I've given my argument yet again and demonstrated that your criticisms of it are unsatisfactory. Stating that your opponents must disprove your assertions is not a convincing argument. There's more to it than that. I've elaborated on why the burden of proof lies where I claim it does. You've done no such thing. You (and DeGrazia) can't support your assertions so you attempt to force others to supply proof of the contrary, its the oldest trick in the book. If you expect for one single moment that such a tactic is going to meet with any success you are dreaming. All it does is show to everyone that your position cannot be argued on its merits. I've explained exactly why the burden of proof lies where it does. You haven't, rupie. You have merely, and emptily, asserted where it lies. No. I have given an argument. No, rupie, you haven't. You've mumbled an asssertion, and run away from supporting it. You are wrong. The burden of supporting your claim that animals are due equal moral consideration lies on YOU and your other failure "aras". We know you can't meet it. |
#308
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 17, 6:00 am, Rudy Canoza wrote: Rupert the lying skirt-boy wrote: On Jul 16, 7:31 pm, Dutch wrote: Rupert wrote: On Jul 16, 4:15 pm, Dutch wrote: Rupert wrote: I've given my argument yet again and demonstrated that your criticisms of it are unsatisfactory. Stating that your opponents must disprove your assertions is not a convincing argument. There's more to it than that. I've elaborated on why the burden of proof lies where I claim it does. You've done no such thing. You (and DeGrazia) can't support your assertions so you attempt to force others to supply proof of the contrary, its the oldest trick in the book. If you expect for one single moment that such a tactic is going to meet with any success you are dreaming. All it does is show to everyone that your position cannot be argued on its merits. I've explained exactly why the burden of proof lies where it does. You haven't, rupie. You have merely, and emptily, asserted where it lies. No. I have given an argument. And I've pointed out the inadequacies in your criticisms of the argument. And then I've done it again. And again. And again. And it still doesn't stop you from mindlessly blabbering that I've just made an unsupported assertion. You're obviously not capable of engaging with the argument in a serious way. Fine, not my problem. If someone insisted that plants had rights would we automatically inherit the burden to disprove that too? Doesn't it make sense that a person advancing a case should make some argument to defend it? You are wrong. The burden of supporting your claim that animals are due equal moral consideration lies on YOU and your other failure "aras". We know you can't meet it. |
#309
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
Rupert wrote:
Dutch has at least showed us an essay which acknowledges that there is an argument that needs to be engaged with and makes a serious attempt to do so. It's a serious, rigorous, positive approach to moral status that YOU need to address. Beyond explaining moral status more definitively, it just happens that it deals with the argument from marginal cases. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|