Which ethical works successfully defend speciesism?

>>7849445
Just about every non utilitarian work.

>>7849451
So non-utilitarians as a rule consider it fine to make other persons suffer just because they're not human?

File: squidward.jpg (18KB, 300x299px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 300x299px

>>>>>>>Peter Singer

>>7849468
/thread

File: singer01.jpg (31KB, 500x340px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 500x340px

>>7849468
>not liking pierre chanteur

He's like Aussie shitposting at a higher level.

speciesism relies on the assumption that one finds all the other -isms immoral

File: 1410216173904.gif (3KB, 243x240px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 243x240px

>hard fact

>animal rights advocate
>thinks disabled babies should be euthanised
Singer truly is bringing aussie shortlisting to a whole new level

>>7849497
Oh my FUCKING FUCK stupid autocorrect
(this is a metamodernist poem btw)

>>7849493
I find TISM immoral

>>7849461
Non utilitarians don't see suffering as some awful to avoid evil from hell.
If you aren't human you aren't a person. There is no personhood in a dog.

File: koko.jpg (60KB, 620x388px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 620x388px

>>7849507
>If you aren't human you aren't a person.
That's not true though. There are animals with a sense of self that can communicate with humans via a shared language. We call retards persons and some of them display less personhood than certain intelligent animals.

>>7849510
>That's not true though. There are animals with a sense of self that can communicate with humans via a shared language.
That doesn't make them a person. Personhood is for all intents and purposes a universal or an ideal which every man has and no animal can have regardless of intelligence or ability to communicate.
>We call retards persons and some of them display less personhood than certain intelligent animals.
That's because personhood is had just by being human and nothing that isn't human can have it since it's part of essence of being a man.

>>7849513
But "human" is a spook. At what point in evolutionary history did humans come into existence? You understand that it was a spectrum, right? You understand that you're talking utter bollocks and any actual academic would disagree with your definition of "personhood=human", right?
No, I guess you think you know better.

>>7849513
Your use of personhood means nothing but 'human', making it a pretty useless phrase.

If aliens as intelligent as us or more so would visit, would you consider them not to be persons?

>>7849530
>>7849543
You guys are acting retarded or really are? Have you not heard of virtue ethics or duty ethics? Like they aren't 'empirical' and rest on axioms different to your dogmas? You know I don't assume your starting point in view of the world? And yes, the modern utilitarian would fucking disagree with me.
You have also obvious never heard of meta ideals like the rule of law, which just like personhood isn't definable and is a ''useless phrase".
Like, if you ask a question about ethics, at least read a fucking book, maybe some Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant and Hayek.

>>7849550
>uses like to start off a sentence
>incapable of perceiving how retarded he sounds
everything adds up. You are dumb.

>>7849559
You are uneducated and have never read something you disagree with and use the word spooks unironically.
Everything adds up, fucking retard.

>>7849569
I never used the word spooks. You're even dumber then I had thought.

>>7849550
If you make personhood synonymous to humanity it becomes a useless phrase in the sense that it describes nothing that can't be described by the phrase humanity instead.

You don't need to start angrily namedropping, anon, you should rather answer my alien question.

>>7849569
Fuck off with your wishful thinking and anthropocentrism.

>>7849445
been to one of his video-plenaries. Pure shit.

>>7849569
Stay mad shit head

>>7849530
>You understand that it was a spectrum, right?
>>>>>muh spectrum
M8, self-consciousness began to exist at some point. That was the point of becoming human.

>>7849550
>no arguments, just saying 'i read real philosophers you probably never heard of them'

>>7849598
Not all humans have self-awareness.

Where do YOU draw the line, Anon? At sperm?

>>7849445
This is like asking which work successfully defends slavery. No such thing.

>>7849445
To actually answer your question OP ...

Bernard Williams' essay "The Human Prejudice" is a defense of speciesism. There's also a video on youtube of him reading it.

>>7849598
Self consciousness only arises from socialisation, simply the virtue of being born human does not endow you with self consciousness

Not to mention self consciousness is not required to feel pain or to fear it

>>7849598
>becoming human
>having a point

o my u are spooked arent u