I read his Animal Liberation which I was pretty iffy about...I remember he drew some fire for arguing that babies within the first year of life are cognitively comparable to worms and, if their death would increase the overall happiness of the parents then we should allow infant euthanasia...the idea that he'd make an argument like that and yet still be all up in arms over animal rights rubbed me the wrong way. No problem with questionable philosophies but his just seemed bordering on self-sabotage.

...

It was probably intended to be shocking to get your attention. If people object to babies being killed, upon what basis can they justify killing cows and pigs and other such animals? Of course, people simply don't have good philosophical justifications for their views on things, and are often inconsistent in how they approach such matters. In this case, it is likely that was is at work is "speciesism", so that people are simply bigoted about these matters, very much like some people are bigoted about race and other such things.

Yes, and it ought to be that way. It's not practical to hold concern for every single species. Let the birds eat the worms and us eat the birds, I say.

By: "It's not practical to hold concern for every single species.", what do you mean?

And do you regard what is practical as the same as what is ethical?

And is it practical to care about other people?

Should we adopt A Modest Proposal as well?

It would certainly help deal with overpopulation, so it seems like it would be a very practical idea.

As for your last sentence, do you regard birds as a model for how we should behave?

It was probably intended to be shocking to get your attention. If people object to babies being killed, upon what basis can they justify killing cows and pigs and other such animals? Of course, people simply don't have good philosophical justifications for their views on things, and are often inconsistent in how they approach such matters. In this case, it is likely that was is at work is "speciesism", so that people are simply bigoted about these matters, very much like some people are bigoted about race and other such things.

I read his Animal Liberation which I was pretty iffy about...I remember he drew some fire for arguing that babies within the first year of life are cognitively comparable to worms and, if their death would increase the overall happiness of the parents then we should allow infant euthanasia...the idea that he'd make an argument like that and yet still be all up in arms over animal rights rubbed me the wrong way. No problem with questionable philosophies but his just seemed bordering on self-sabotage.

...

It was probably intended to be shocking to get your attention. If people object to babies being killed, upon what basis can they justify killing cows and pigs and other such animals? Of course, people simply don't have good philosophical justifications for their views on things, and are often inconsistent in how they approach such matters. In this case, it is likely that was is at work is "speciesism", so that people are simply bigoted about these matters, very much like some people are bigoted about race and other such things.

People eat animals. They don't eat babies (I hope).

Not only that. It is true.

Why do you hope that? Do you think that babies are more intelligent, or more capable of feeling pain, than other animals that are killed for food?

Or to ask differently, what is wrong with eating babies? And does that answer apply to other sorts of animals? Does the answer amount to "speciesism", simply a prejudice in favor of one species over others?

The mere fact that people do one thing but not another is no reason to suppose that there is a good reason for people doing the one and not the other. There may be a good reason for it, or it may be that people are making an irrelevant distinction. But if there is a good reason for this distinction, I have never heard it.

People laughed at Swift's A Modest Proposal, but who's laughing now! I certainly am.

Yes, thank you. I was just about to mention the Swift satire too. Actually, I expressed the hope that people don't eat babies because they are mostly saturated fat.

I really like Dennett and Sam Harris right now, thanks for the other reccommendations!!

Owen Flannagan
Peter Singer
Daniel Dennet
Richard Rorty
Jonathan Westphal
Ken Wilbur

These guys are all good reads, and I think they are all still alive.