Lukas_Gloor comments on Arguments Against Speciesism - LessWrong

28 Post author: Lukas_Gloor 28 July 2013 06:24PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (474)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Lumifer 29 July 2013 08:14:27PM 10 points [-]

We can imagine a continuous line-up of ancestors, always daughter and mother, from modern humans back to the common ancestor of humans and, say, cows, and then forward in time again to modern cows. How would we then divide this line up into distinct species? Morally significant lines would have to be drawn between mother and daughter, but that seems absurd!

That's a common fallacy. Let me illustrate:

The notions of hot and cold water are nonsensical. The water temperature is continuous from 0C to 100C. How would you divide this into distinct areas? You would have to draw a line between neighboring values different by tiny fractions of a degree, but that seems absurd!

Comment author: Lukas_Gloor 30 July 2013 02:59:39AM *  3 points [-]

I'm not the one arguing for dividing this up into distinct areas, my whole point was to just look at the relevant criteria and nothing else. If the relevant criterion is temperature, you get a gradual scale for your example. If it is sentience, you have too look for each individual animal separately and ignore species boundaries for that.

Comment author: Lumifer 30 July 2013 04:20:35AM 0 points [-]

I'm not the one arguing for dividing this up into distinct areas

Right, you're the one arguing for complete continuity in the species space and lack of boundaries between species. Similar to the lack of boundary between cold and hot water.

you have too look for each individual animal separately and ignore species boundaries for that.

I'm confused. You seem to think it's useful to sit by an anthill and test each individual ant for sentience..?

Comment author: Creutzer 31 July 2013 06:01:24AM -1 points [-]

I'm confused. You seem to think it's useful to sit by an anthill and test each individual ant for sentience..?

I think "animal" was used in the sense of "kind of animal" here.