tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post6473432962329818073..comments2023-10-14T09:40:06.690-05:00Comments on Jean Kazez: Super-EgalitarianismJean Kazezhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-10574301737949328172009-12-30T07:04:03.584-06:002009-12-30T07:04:03.584-06:00Taylor, In this post I am talking about "supe...Taylor, In this post I am talking about "super-egalitarianism," not the more modest egalitarianism of Singer or even Regan. For what it's worth--I wouldn't characterize Regan as you do. He doesn't give preference to the interests of normal humans in just any situation of "irreconcilable conflict," but in certain very special types of situations--the "Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-17997769389795412892009-12-29T22:36:51.655-06:002009-12-29T22:36:51.655-06:00"Equality" needs defining. For Peter Sin..."Equality" needs defining. For Peter Singer it means equal consideration of interests. For Tom Regan, it means having the same right not to be treated merely as means to the ends of others. Neither of these versions of equality implies that non-humans ought always to be treated in the same way we ought to treat humans. Both Singer and Regan give preference to the interests of (normal) Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-83187222365898803352009-12-22T14:01:51.867-06:002009-12-22T14:01:51.867-06:00Utility.Utility.Waynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627147979307495870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-37880157864562361442009-12-21T18:09:39.368-06:002009-12-21T18:09:39.368-06:00In some cases where you attempt to adjudicate a hu...In some cases where you attempt to adjudicate a human-animal conflict I bet you side with the animal. So if you side with humans in this particular human-mice conflict, it doesn't necessarily come from a bias. You could actually have good reasons to settle things that way....though it may not be easy to say what they are.Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-12185125135505143362009-12-21T11:30:09.257-06:002009-12-21T11:30:09.257-06:00It's not a ridiculous question, but I would p...It's not a ridiculous question, but I would priorize Native-Americans over mice because I'm a human being and human beings are a priority for me. That probably has a biological basis and while I know that the fact that something has a biological basis does not make it good, I don't see why in this case it makes it bad. As a matter of fact, I would distrust a person for whom s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.com