Claim: I base my morality on the intelligence of the species


We don't just base morality on intelligence or species, but on the combination of the two: what matters is the mean intelligence of the species as a whole.

Problems With This Argument

1. Each of the individual arguments is countered on the respective pages

But to summarize, carnist ethicists do the following:

  1. Create a set of rules as a standard for moral behavior based on well-being and suffering
  2. ... Ignore that standard in an act of special pleading to base the morality of eating food
  3. Create an arbitrary rule about intelligence as the criterion for which animals are ok to kill, and continue the special pleading in picking a subset of intelligence, such as verbalization (as understood by humans) or math
  4. ... Ignore this distinction anyway in assigning what species is ok to kill (e.g. in the intelligence of a pig vs cat, for instance)
  5. Create an arbitrary rule about how animals are grouped together based on interbreeding (again, an arbitrary property)
  6. ... Ignore this grouping anyway (e.g. wolves vs dogs) in assigning the selection rules left in step 5 that weren't ignored.
  7. And then apply an additional set of rules to make further adjustments for the rules in step 1 that include everything other than what animal is ok to kill as a part of eating.

And when this entire Byzantine formula is plugged into the calculator of morality, everything else we decided in step 1 applies, but now bacon is conveniently okay to eat.

The inclusion of the train of logical fallacies in steps 2-7 doesn't represent a sophisticated advancement over avoiding the pointless animal cruelty which step 1 would lead you to.

Markdown - (copy 📋)
Rich Text
[Claim: I base my morality on the intelligence of the species](