> singer as i understand him, does
> not argue for using humans as the gold standard. nonetheless, if one
> uses ethical considerations in choosing actions, then he attempts to
> show that such considerations, when grounded in objective i.e., formal
> terms, compel us to reject speceisism.
But the definition of what living things deserve rights and respect is based on how similar they are to humans! Human life is indeed the gold standard here for "valuable" life. Also, you and Singer do not reject speciesism: you say it's okay to kill things without a central nervous system (e.g., plants). Your position seems internally inconsistent to me: if you say, "reject speciesism", that means your argument applies to all life, and the moral thing to do is starve to death. If you say, "we can distinguish between forms of life worthy of respect and rights and those that are not", you're engaging in the exact same reasoning a meat user does; you just draw the line between
living things worthy of rights and living things not worthy of rights in a different place.
There are no "formal" or "objective" terms that compel a person to draw the line between living things deserving of respect and not deserving of respect where you and Singer do; as far as I can tell, it's an arbitrary decision based on common sense ideas about cruelty and suffering.
Miles