= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Arguments Against Speciesism - LessWrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (474)
It's not sexist to say that women are more likely to get breast cancer. This is a differentiation based on sex, but it's empirically founded, so not sexist.
Similarly, we could say that ants' behavior doesn't appear to be affected by narcotics, so we should discount the possibility of their suffering. This is a judgement based on species, but is empirically founded, so not speciesist.
Things only become _ist if you say "I have no evidence to support my view, but consider X to be less worthy solely because they aren't in my race/class/sex/species."
I genuinely don't think anyone on LW thinks speciesism is OK.
Ah, the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by one little ugly fact... :-D
I do feel speciesism is perfectly fine.
Same here, I think speciesism is a fine heuristic here and now (it may not be so in the future).
If it's a heuristic, then it's not speciesism.
If it's a "heuristic" that overrides lots of evidence, then it's speciesism. Which is just another way of saying that you aren't performing a Bayesian update correctly.