davidpearce comments on Arguments Against Speciesism - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (474)
Yes. That's perfectly fine. In fact, if you examine the revealed preferences (e.g. who people prefer to have as their neighbours or who do they prefer to marry) you will see that most people in reality do prefer others of their own race.
And, of course, the same can be said of sex, too. Unless you are an evenhanded bi, you're most certainly guilty of preferring some specific sex (or maybe gender, it varies).
"Morally acceptable" is a judgement, it is conditional on which morality you're using as your standard. Different moralities will produce different moral acceptability for the same actions.
Perhaps you wanted to say "socially acceptable"? In particular, "socially acceptable in contemporary US"? That, of course, is a very different thing.
Sigh. This is a rationality forum, no? And you're using emotionally charged guilt-by-association arguments? (it's actually designed guilt-by-association since the word "speciesism" was explicitly coined to resemble "racism", etc.).
Warning: HERE BE MIND-KILLERS!
Lumifer, should the charge of "mind-killers" be levelled at anti-speciesists or meat-eaters? (If you were being ironic, apologies for being so literal-minded.)
I'm fairly sure it's for the examples referencing the politically charged issues of racism and sexism.
It can be levelled at most people who use employ either of those terms.
Neither. It just looks like it would be a useful sign in front of animal-rights discussions.
I see people having strong emotional priors and marshaling arguments in favour of predefined conclusions. Not that different from politics, really, except maybe there's less tribal identity involved.