I agree that the same points could have been made in a less counterproductive way. Specifically, I found them a bit aggressive and condescending (like āgotcha!ā). I can see how this could warrant a temporary ban. (I donāt have strong views either way about whether it should.)
This is my view too.
However ā and I donāt know if you had them in mind, so you can correct me if you didnāt ā the other terms, like ābreedingā, ākillingā and āeatingā, donāt really have any better alternatives for making the same points.
On the one hand, I believe applying the same terms to both humans and non-human animals is helpful to break speciesism. On the other, it can be offensive to people who attribbute quite different moral weights to humans and non-human animals (I do not).
Furthermore, my understanding from Vascoās writing and comments is that heās a classical utilitarian or close, so the replaceability argument should apply in principle even to humans, as long as the average human life-moment isnāt worse, or greater numbers can make up for a worse average.
Agreed. To clarify, I strongly endorse expectational total hedonistic utilitarianism (which I think is the same as classical utilitarianism).
This is basically what matty pointed out in the last comment, and it seems worth it for Vasco to explicitly consider and respond to this point. Vasco did call it uncooperative, both if done to humans and to other humans.
Good point! I had not realised that, possibly because of the tone. I will reply.
Hey Vasco, I edited my response around when you were replying, and replaced the bottom part of my comment. What I had before and decided to replace wasnāt useful/ārelevant in response to Lizka. Iām just flagging this for you, but feel free to leave your comment as is.
Thanks for commenting, Michael.
This is my view too.
On the one hand, I believe applying the same terms to both humans and non-human animals is helpful to break speciesism. On the other, it can be offensive to people who attribbute quite different moral weights to humans and non-human animals (I do not).
Agreed. To clarify, I strongly endorse expectational total hedonistic utilitarianism (which I think is the same as classical utilitarianism).
Good point! I had not realised that, possibly because of the tone. I will reply.
Hey Vasco, I edited my response around when you were replying, and replaced the bottom part of my comment. What I had before and decided to replace wasnāt useful/ārelevant in response to Lizka. Iām just flagging this for you, but feel free to leave your comment as is.