tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post3835510419236907150..comments2023-10-14T09:40:06.690-05:00Comments on Jean Kazez: The Argument from Marginal CasesJean Kazezhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-55172221889079809282010-12-14T18:44:58.318-06:002010-12-14T18:44:58.318-06:00Jean Kazez: We are not allowed to see any complexi...Jean Kazez: <i>We are not allowed to see any complexity in our reaction--like its being partly a matter of seeing the capacities Cog does have, and partly a matter of sympathy, and partly a matter of wanting protection for our own relatives some day, and partly a matter of knowing that could be us some day.</i><br /><br />It seems clear that all of these complexities do arise in practice when we Andy Dhttp://andysresearch.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-23250278086209367532010-08-24T14:10:48.815-05:002010-08-24T14:10:48.815-05:00It is important to note that Kazez doesn’t refute ...It is important to note that Kazez doesn’t refute the argument from "marginal cases", so much as question the suggested least common (moral) denominator -- sentience, understood, generally, as being the kind of being who is capable of caring (because he/she feels and therefore has a welfare) about what happens to him/her. <br /><br />Kazez suggests alternative premises: “things they Alex Melonashttp://thatvegangirl.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-30922366026691669042010-04-19T21:19:52.454-05:002010-04-19T21:19:52.454-05:00It still seems like you'd have to have pretty ...It still seems like you'd have to have pretty definite ideas about what underlies moral considerability to make this argument work. You have to be able to rule out various properties (being human, eg) as irrelevant. You also have to decide whether it's more plausible that rationality underlies moral considerability, or that impaired humans and some animals are morally considerable. To Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-1673561591810803742010-04-19T16:57:19.616-05:002010-04-19T16:57:19.616-05:00Right, I was reading the movement to lower animals...Right, I was reading the movement to lower animals as based on sufficient overlap, but that's not quite right. I don't think there's any reason to base the argument on an appeal to the best explanation. There really are just two options that can be reached by appeal to consistency alone. Either some human beings are going to excluded from direct moral consideration or some non-humans Mike Almeidahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12001511002085064198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-8268542258983064212010-04-19T16:04:54.993-05:002010-04-19T16:04:54.993-05:00Actually, the central passage is longer...start wi...Actually, the central passage is longer...start with that paragraph and continue for a few. Obviously, there's much more in there than I've packed into my "in a nutshell" version.Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-56742466040508486672010-04-19T14:37:59.915-05:002010-04-19T14:37:59.915-05:00Mike, I have not set up the argument as a sorites-...Mike, I have not set up the argument as a sorites--not at all. I'm not sure why you think so. Premise (1) boldly declares that Norm and Cog both have a certain moral property in common. I don't inch along from Norm having the property, to Cog having it, to Chimp having, it, etc., in a "one hair at a time" sorites fashion.<br /><br />(2) is obtained from (1) by an inference to Jean Kazeznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-22345240046001081932010-04-19T09:22:50.563-05:002010-04-19T09:22:50.563-05:00A little late to the party. Anyway, you make the M...A little late to the party. Anyway, you make the MCA look like a sorites, and those are of course invalid (and certainly prove way too much). But MCA's are not sorites. The argument takes as a premise that some human beings have the properties allegedly subvening moral standing (rationality, self-awareness, language, or whatnot) to a lesser degree than some non-humans (dogs, say, or cats). SoMike Almeidahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12001511002085064198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-78860090468655721442010-04-16T15:45:25.722-05:002010-04-16T15:45:25.722-05:00Taylor and Ed: My apologies for confusing you.Taylor and Ed: My apologies for confusing you.s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-27023348094842544142010-04-16T15:43:18.628-05:002010-04-16T15:43:18.628-05:00Ed: No one was attempting what is called the argu...Ed: No one was attempting what is called the argumentum ad Hitler. <br />I was only pointing out that vegetarianism (and I am a vegetarian) has no political color.<br />That's all.s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-41515820879589072152010-04-16T15:43:09.061-05:002010-04-16T15:43:09.061-05:00One more thing -- and to quote Tristram Stuart yet...One more thing -- and to quote Tristram Stuart yet again, <br /><br />"...that Hitler was a vegetarian need be no more relevant to a vegetarian than the fact that other Nazis were meat-eaters is relevant to meat-eaters."<br /><br />But if one believes that vegetarianism/veganism = purity it WILL be relevant for such a person.Melissanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-61169698327891966342010-04-16T15:26:10.703-05:002010-04-16T15:26:10.703-05:00"We should be careful about trying to win arg..."We should be careful about trying to win arguments by comparing opponents to Nazis."<br /><br />Taylor: Of course, that would be ridiculous. There is nothing Fascist about vegetarianism, however there is something disturbing about the vegan ideal.Melissanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-47373186506105748522010-04-16T14:55:17.249-05:002010-04-16T14:55:17.249-05:00Hitler loved his mother. Is it any wonder, then, t...Hitler loved his mother. Is it any wonder, then, that he referred to Germany as the "Motherland", despite most Germans calling it the "Fatherland"? I find the concept of Mother's Day chillingly compatible with fascism. And watch out for mothers who drive Volkswagens -- especially scary!<br /><br />Yes, there was a strong back-to-nature element in Nazi ideology. But nature Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-21774304000201132852010-04-16T13:28:14.682-05:002010-04-16T13:28:14.682-05:00Melissa: The information I have agrees with what...Melissa: The information I have agrees with what you say. Life is complicated. The good guys don't always wear white hats and ride white horses.s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-30738353410690323662010-04-16T13:07:16.003-05:002010-04-16T13:07:16.003-05:00Ed: Yes, however I consider the historian and free...Ed: Yes, however I consider the historian and freegan Tristram Stuart a reliable source. Hitler did eat meat, but practiced vegetarianism much of the time and espoused a vegetarian philosophy. Again, I highly recommend "Bloodless Revolution."Melissanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-91404997893993184502010-04-16T12:48:08.936-05:002010-04-16T12:48:08.936-05:00Melissa
Most of the biographers I've seen who...Melissa<br /><br />Most of the biographers I've seen who address the subject of his diet claim that Hitler ate things like sausage, ham, liver and squab, among other animal products. Doesn't sound very vegetarian to me. I have heard that he tried on occasion to cut meat out of his diet to try and reduce his extreme flatulence. That's not really being a vegetarian though.Edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06399341362068645241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-71815822630726655222010-04-16T11:56:26.520-05:002010-04-16T11:56:26.520-05:00Re: Vegetarian Nazis
I highly recommend Tristram ...Re: Vegetarian Nazis<br /><br />I highly recommend Tristram Stuart's "The Bloodless Revolution: A Cultural History of Vegetarianism from 1600 to Modern Times." The historical evidence Stuart provides is astounding -- Hitler was in fact a vegetarian as Amos points out and vegetarianism was common among Fascists. Here's just one snippet from the book.<br /><br />Stuart states, &Melissanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-50920854212328564652010-04-16T11:53:42.595-05:002010-04-16T11:53:42.595-05:00Like Taylor, I do not find the word "marginal...Like Taylor, I do not find the word "marginal" to be offensive. When you have variability within a population some individuals are naturally going to be at an edge of the range.<br /><br />Maybe the problem is that some marginal cases have limited capacity compared to the average, and this leads to the uncomfortable idea that a person of different capacity may have a different moral Edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06399341362068645241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-30957786061568233722010-04-16T09:54:01.338-05:002010-04-16T09:54:01.338-05:00Faust: Wikipedia is maravellous.
Here's an ar...Faust: Wikipedia is maravellous.<br />Here's an article about the Fuhrer's diet.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_vegetarianisms. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-76568772244605899742010-04-16T09:34:14.723-05:002010-04-16T09:34:14.723-05:00Faust: Here's a start:
http://en.wikipedia.o...Faust: Here's a start:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Germany<br /><br />The article doesn't mention that Hitler and most of the top Nazis were vegetarians. There was a joke in the 60's: who was the first hippie? Answer: Hitler.<br />He believed in astrology, had a moustache, drugged himself and was a vegetarian.s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-16404011123681738022010-04-16T09:14:20.852-05:002010-04-16T09:14:20.852-05:00Wayne, The more minimal version sounds better, but...Wayne, The more minimal version sounds better, but there's still the problem that we agree with (1) because of all sorts of factors, but then we're asked to ignore them all and accept (2). It doesn't have to be because of some shared inner abilities that Norm and Cog both have "basic minimal rights" if what you mean by that is anything strong and substantive. I will buy Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-13747927197712078002010-04-16T08:59:45.129-05:002010-04-16T08:59:45.129-05:00"Actually, concern for animals has no politic..."Actually, concern for animals has no political home. The Nazis were more concerned about animals than about people."<br /><br />That's new on me. Where can I find material to support this assertion.Fausthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14221763658202924449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-12703958903885583522010-04-15T19:02:05.485-05:002010-04-15T19:02:05.485-05:00But we don't have to make the Marginal cases a...But we don't have to make the Marginal cases argument with as such a strong statement as p2, nor with the same conclusion.<br /><br />e.g. 1. Norm and Cog are have the same basic minimal rights. (clearly they're not the same in every value. We don't let Cogs vote or make autonomous decisions sometimes).<br /><br />2. This is because they share certain basic mental abilities. (say Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06112074620045909403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-68295696309183115922010-04-15T17:15:42.974-05:002010-04-15T17:15:42.974-05:00Actually, concern for animals has no political ho...Actually, concern for animals has no political home. The Nazis were more concerned about animals than about people.s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-86628765992202553962010-04-15T16:20:42.965-05:002010-04-15T16:20:42.965-05:00Interesting,
I'll have to take a look at dom...Interesting, <br /><br />I'll have to take a look at dominion at some point.Fausthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14221763658202924449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-28831705268403919972010-04-15T15:17:50.597-05:002010-04-15T15:17:50.597-05:00"many years ago when I was a right wing Repub..."many years ago when I was a right wing Republican fairly fundamentalist Christian"<br /><br />Ha...it's not often I read a phrase like that. I am obviously not a "normal" AR person because I love the book Dominion. I don't think all the philosophy in the book is stellar, but he is one of my inspirations for pushing the idea that "animal liberation" doesn&#Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.com