(July 23, 2014 at 2:08 pm)SteveII Wrote: If our morality came from our evolution and our experiences AND if we had evolved differently (or another intelligence evolved) and we could have a difference set of moral values and duties, doesn't that lead to espousing speciesism?

That's why an intelligent application of morality expands to "conscious entities," rather than "humans," both in the hopes that fairly treating other species of sophisticated intelligence will lead to cooperation rather than competition, and due to the fact that one can't- as far as I can tell- produce a logically consistent speciesist moral system, that demonstrates why one set of rules should be in place for humans, and another for other species. Special pleading inevitably leaches in.

Pocaracas of course our morality (objective) and values can still be improved. We're far away from perfection in terms of rights (and duties, never forget human duties). I was just saying I don't believe religions help defend human rights, on the contrary. I believe our values will still evolve and become more perfect, as long as we keep fighting and spreading the word. Can I ask if you're a part of the portuguese atheist association? Do you read any portuguese blog/forum related to atheism? I'm curious about joining or reading something alike.

(July 23, 2014 at 2:08 pm)SteveII Wrote: If our morality came from our evolution and our experiences AND if we had evolved differently (or another intelligence evolved) and we could have a difference set of moral values and duties, doesn't that lead to espousing speciesism?

Yep it also leads to nuclear- familism, nepotism, tribalism, nationalism, and a whole number of other isms which might have noticed have and do exist. Whether and how much we espouse to isms though can be tempered by rationality.

Religionism, is an ism I'd like to see the end of. Speciesism I'd like to keep. I have pets, exterminate insects in my home and eat meat. Speciesm regarding another intelligent form of life would depend on how well we could cooperate with that intelligent other.

Richard Dawkins seems to be very much against speciesism as illogical and dishonest. How is he wrong?

(July 23, 2014 at 2:51 pm)SteveII Wrote: Richard Dawkins seems to be very much against speciesism as illogical and dishonest. How is he wrong?

You'll have to quote Dawkins on his reasons otherwise I don't know. ---- I really don't treat Dawkins as a messiah. He's a good writer of popular science and I gather a fairly well respected scientist as well. He's not an authority on everything. There isn't a holy book of evolution or atheism either one.

(July 23, 2014 at 2:22 pm)Blackout Wrote: Pocaracas of course our morality (objective) and values can still be improved. We're far away from perfection in terms of rights (and duties, never forget human duties). I was just saying I don't believe religions help defend human rights, on the contrary. I believe our values will still evolve and become more perfect, as long as we keep fighting and spreading the word.

Agreed

(July 23, 2014 at 2:22 pm)Blackout Wrote: Can I ask if you're a part of the portuguese atheist association? Do you read any portuguese blog/forum related to atheism? I'm curious about joining or reading something alike.

Wow.... there's a portuguese atheist association?
There are atheist dedicated blogs?
I have never searched for them... I get my atheist fix right here and from people from all over the world! How cool is that?!

I don't have his book, but here is an excerpt from Wikipedia article on Speciesism regarding Richard Dawkins' opposition.

In the chapter "The one true tree of life" in The Blind Watchmaker, he argues that it is not only zoological taxonomy that is saved from awkward ambiguity by the extinction of intermediate forms, but also human ethics and law. Dawkins argues that what he calls the "discontinuous mind" is ubiquitous, dividing the world into units that reflect nothing but our use of language, and animals into discontinuous species:
The director of a zoo is entitled to "put down" a chimpanzee that is surplus to requirements, while any suggestion that he might "put down" a redundant keeper or ticket-seller would be greeted with howls of incredulous outrage. The chimpanzee is the property of the zoo. Humans are nowadays not supposed to be anybody's property, yet the rationale for discriminating against chimpanzees is seldom spelled out, and I doubt if there is a defensible rationale at all. Such is the breathtaking speciesism of our Christian-inspired attitudes, the abortion of a single human zygote (most of them are destined to be spontaneously aborted anyway) can arouse more moral solicitude and righteous indignation than the vivisection of any number of intelligent adult chimpanzees! ... The only reason we can be comfortable with such a double standard is that the intermediates between humans and chimps are all dead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism#...us_mind.22

(July 24, 2014 at 8:30 am)SteveII Wrote: I don't have his book, but here is an excerpt from Wikipedia article on Speciesism regarding Richard Dawkins' opposition.

In the chapter "The one true tree of life" in The Blind Watchmaker, he argues that it is not only zoological taxonomy that is saved from awkward ambiguity by the extinction of intermediate forms, but also human ethics and law. Dawkins argues that what he calls the "discontinuous mind" is ubiquitous, dividing the world into units that reflect nothing but our use of language, and animals into discontinuous species:
The director of a zoo is entitled to "put down" a chimpanzee that is surplus to requirements, while any suggestion that he might "put down" a redundant keeper or ticket-seller would be greeted with howls of incredulous outrage. The chimpanzee is the property of the zoo. Humans are nowadays not supposed to be anybody's property, yet the rationale for discriminating against chimpanzees is seldom spelled out, and I doubt if there is a defensible rationale at all. Such is the breathtaking speciesism of our Christian-inspired attitudes, the abortion of a single human zygote (most of them are destined to be spontaneously aborted anyway) can arouse more moral solicitude and righteous indignation than the vivisection of any number of intelligent adult chimpanzees! ... The only reason we can be comfortable with such a double standard is that the intermediates between humans and chimps are all dead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism#...us_mind.22

I know this might be a hard concept to grasp, but shocker... not every atheist agrees with Dawkins on everything.

(July 24, 2014 at 8:30 am)SteveII Wrote: I don't have his book, but here is an excerpt from Wikipedia article on Speciesism regarding Richard Dawkins' opposition.

In the chapter "The one true tree of life" in The Blind Watchmaker, he argues that it is not only zoological taxonomy that is saved from awkward ambiguity by the extinction of intermediate forms, but also human ethics and law. Dawkins argues that what he calls the "discontinuous mind" is ubiquitous, dividing the world into units that reflect nothing but our use of language, and animals into discontinuous species:
The director of a zoo is entitled to "put down" a chimpanzee that is surplus to requirements, while any suggestion that he might "put down" a redundant keeper or ticket-seller would be greeted with howls of incredulous outrage. The chimpanzee is the property of the zoo. Humans are nowadays not supposed to be anybody's property, yet the rationale for discriminating against chimpanzees is seldom spelled out, and I doubt if there is a defensible rationale at all. Such is the breathtaking speciesism of our Christian-inspired attitudes, the abortion of a single human zygote (most of them are destined to be spontaneously aborted anyway) can arouse more moral solicitude and righteous indignation than the vivisection of any number of intelligent adult chimpanzees! ... The only reason we can be comfortable with such a double standard is that the intermediates between humans and chimps are all dead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism#...us_mind.22

I tend to agree with this line of argument, which is why I don't partake in animal products- leather and so on- beyond food. There's definitely a hierarchy involved, depending on sentience and cognition (I doubt anyone would mourn a swatted mosquito, as it doesn't have the intelligence to render that wasteful in a moral sense) but there's no need to exhibit unnecessary cruelty or callousness regarding animals. This is somewhat reflected in our legal system, where animal cruelty laws exist.

It's a difficult line to properly quantify, definitely a grey area, but that's not a challenge to human derived morality in itself. It's just an effect of living in a complicated world.

Quote:Humans are nowadays not supposed to be anybody's property, yet the rationale for discriminating against chimpanzees is seldom spelled out, and I doubt if there is a defensible rationale at all. Such is the breathtaking speciesism of our Christian-inspired attitudes, the abortion of a single human zygote (most of them are destined to be spontaneously aborted anyway) can arouse more moral solicitude and righteous indignation than the vivisection of any number of intelligent adult chimpanzees! ... The only reason we can be comfortable with such a double standard is that the intermediates between humans and chimps are all dead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism#...us_mind.22

It is true that if all the different species ranging from our common ancestor with the chimpanzees were still extant, that we would have a hard time defining where humanity ends and the next species of apes begins. Any point we chose would be arbitrary. But I don't agree with Dawkins that this necessarily means we should treat apes like humans. This is because I'm quite sure that wherever we drew that arbitrary line, it would be somewhere this side of the chimpanzee.

Dawkins admits that his argument is really (like many moral arguments) emotional and not scientific. If you're are interested, here's his explanation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQv19SWl_SA

What I do agree is that gratuitous cruelty to animals is wrong and that the degree of wrongness increases with the ability of the animal to think and feel emotion. If you ask me why I'll give you two explanations. The first is emotional. The more like me an animal is the more it elicits my empathy. It is empathy that drives much of human morality including mine. Second, it is dangerous to blunt human empathy, because empathy is what underpins our morality. Start torturing feeling thinking beings and you numb your empathy. People with blunted empathy are dangerous to other people.