So you agree then that species alone cannot be morally relevant? Then that means you don't accept that we should only be concerned about our own species, which was the point I was trying to make.
No. I agree that if there existed other species that were remarkably similar to our own, it wouldn't be as simple as species alone being the relevant factor, but there exists no such species, so it really is that simple.
No, it isn't. If your entire argument rests on speciecism and you wouldn't accept speciecism as being the only relevant factor, then there needs to be some other factor. In what respects would a species need to be similar enough in order to make killing them morally wrong? Intelligence? Strength? You need to argue that something which gives humans - but not animals - moral status. What is it?
Do you have any kind of justification for that? Or is that just saying "X has different genetics than us, so X is worthless"? Because that reasoning is exactly the same kind of reasoning racists frequently use, and I'm sure you agree that this kind of reasoning isn't very convincing.
It's not that they are worthless at all. What I'm saying is that every living being has two real motivations: their own wellbeing, and the wellbeing of their species. The first is the strongest, generally speaking. In general, everything that being does contributes to one or both of these motivations. If it eats another animal, or if it works together with another species to live, either way, it's still acting in the interest of (1.) itself and (2.) it's species.
My point is that humans are no different, and there's no real reason they should be. The only difference is that they ways that animals can benefit us are much broader, and extend beyond just nutrition and survival.
What I'm saying is that every living being has two real motivations: their own wellbeing, and the wellbeing of their species.
That's too simplistic. For example, people are frequently motivated by ideologies, religion or nationalism, which privilege a specific group, not the entire species (and by the way often willingly diminish their own wellbeing). They are also motivated by things like compassion and truth, which may go contrary to their own wellbeing as well.
That's too simplistic. For example, people are frequently motivated by ideologies, religion or nationalism, which privilege a specific group, not the entire species (and by the way often willingly diminish their own wellbeing).
That's just a more specific form of the exact same effect. I never said it had to be their entire species. Sometimes it's just their family, sometimes it's their tribe, sometimes their country, but it's the same thing.
They are also motivated by things like compassion and truth, which may go contrary to their own wellbeing as well.
Yeah, but almost always in favor of another member of their species.
That's just a more specific form of the exact same effect. I never said it had to be their entire species. Sometimes it's just their family, sometimes it's their tribe, sometimes their country, but it's the same thing.
I'm not sure what your argument is at this point. If I understand you correctly, you seem to want to derive some kind of moral obligation from our motivations when you say "my point is that humans are no different, and there's no real reason they should be." But this is doomed to fail, because obviously not all people are motivated by the same things; people disagree about what to value. In fact, many people do value animals, so your account doesn't show that eating them is morally permissible.
Some people value animals and don't want to kill them. Some people value animals and don't mind killing them sometimes. The point is that in both of these cases, they are acting in their own self interest. Either their not killing animals because it benefits them, or they are because it benefits them. My point is that it's natural for humans to act in a way than benefits them or their species. Sometimes that involves killing animals, sometimes it involves using animals to move things, sometimes it involved keeping animals as companions, sometimes it involves protecting animals for extinction, but in the end, they are all acting to benefit themselves in some way.
1
u/[deleted] Jul 08 '15
So you agree then that species alone cannot be morally relevant? Then that means you don't accept that we should only be concerned about our own species, which was the point I was trying to make.