SPECIESISM: A Legitmate Moral Concern That Deserves Discussion

Brother AJ said:

It's not fact that we're superior, but rather our own fat-headed arrogant delusion. You completely ignore the fact that these same arguments are used to justify the exploitation and slaughtering of humans. MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. That's all you're ****ing saying here. Thinking my species isn't superior indicates that I hate my species? You are seriously ****ing deluded man. LOL! Keep thinking you should get to behave how animals behave. It'll take you far. Like Lions slaughtering cubs to have sex with the mothers? That's totally something humans should do too! BECAUSE THEY CAN! Your reasoning is foolhardy, and solely depends on an appeal to nature fallacy.

Click to expand...

Tell me one way in which a grizzly bear is superior to me. I can out run it by using my natural ability to build machines that propel me to speeds far in excess of anything a grizzly could ever hope to achieve. I can out-hunt it by the use of tools which my natural abilities give me the ability to create. I can survive in conditions which will kill a grizzly by use of my natural ability to alter my environment to fit my needs. This planet's most deadly predator is nothing more than a rug for my grandchildren to play on if I so choose to use my natural abilities to make it such. Put me up against a Great White and I win because I'm a better predator due to my natural ability to make explosives that will at least stun it to where I can kill it at my leisure and at worst kill it outright. You have this dumb idea that my natural ability to think, create and build are somehow outside of nature, yet they are just as much a part of nature as the deer who's flesh fills my freezer and feeds my family. Every other specie on Earth asserts it's dominance over other species by killing them or driving them out, but you think that human beings aren't part of nature, so you apply a separate set of standards to us. I am an animal, therefore how I behave is how animals behave. I am a part of nature, not apart from it. My superior intellect gives me the luxury to be merciful and caring towards animals whenever possible, but it also gives me the ability to kill, dominate, subjugate and "cultivate" those animals at my discretion. It is what my nature is and is nothing more or less part of nature than a grizzly in a river killing salmon at it's leisure (..and I can outfish every single grizzly ever born).

Brother AJ said:

Um, no. We can choose to include animals within morality if we want to. There's nothing stopping us. AND WE ALREADY DO INCLUDE THEM! Have you never heard of animal cruelty laws? Regardless, as I've already said multiple times now, we constantly include humans within the scope of morality that also do not UNDERSTAND ethical imperatives or systems. There's no reason why other animals shouldn't be included within our moral community other than speciesism.

Click to expand...

Yes, but what's wrong with speciesism? What is your moral objection to basing our moral values on what benefits humanity?

Korimyr the Rat said:

Yes, but what's wrong with speciesism? What is your moral objection to basing our moral values on what benefits humanity?

Click to expand...

That's largely subjective in nature and hard to debate.

I would say in regards to specieism and how it's approached, there should be a couple common determinants:

1. Species near extinction should be protected at all costs.

2. Undue infliction of suffering should be eliminated as much as possible. If a deer can be shot and killed with a bow and arrow or gun, there is no need to skin or boil it alive to reach the same intended goal of ending its life. The reasoning behind this in my eyes is such indifference to suffering can condition humans towards applying this suffering on others, as we see in many serial killers and sadists who start off with animals. This should actively be discouraged.

3. Species who may not be near extinction, but serve a basis in the animal kingdom in relegating the actions of other species should be monitored and culled, based on science. Ex. You don't want to allow a wolf or bear species to become too large as to disrupt the food chain, just as you don't want to allow deer to out breed and deplete their own food supply, leading to massive starvation (as happens quite often). This is why we have lotteries in most states for hunting and a limited number of tags.

4. Over consumption of a species to the detriment of the human population as a whole should be discouraged. For example, cows consume massive amounts of water and crop per pound of cow. In America, this isn't an issue as we have an abundance of resources to grow and raise cows. But if we had massive crop failures and limited space which to grow meat, certain staple foods necessary to our diet like rice and beans should take precedence. Hard to argue that we should be raising massive amounts of cows in a country like Ethiopia.

akrunner88 said:

I would say in regards to specieism and how it's approached, there should be a couple common determinants:

Click to expand...

Certainly. I am not opposed to moral protections for animals and moral obligations concerning their husbandry; I've raised livestock before and I like to believe I did so humanely.

But that is a far cry from treating other species of animal equally to human beings in our moral calculus, which I believe is a frankly ridiculous proposition.

Korimyr the Rat said:

Certainly. I am not opposed to moral protections for animals and moral obligations concerning their husbandry; I've raised livestock before and I like to believe I did so humanely.

But that is a far cry from treating other species of animal equally to human beings in our moral calculus, which I believe is a frankly ridiculous proposition.

Click to expand...

Completely agree with ya.

Brother AJ said:

That's a rather weak argument. There is no question that there are many humans that are not bound to the same laws as us all because they are unable to comprehend them. We don't throw a toddler in jail for pushing his mother down the stairs, for example. This doesn't mean that the toddler isn't still deserving of rights and protections seeing as they remain quite vulnerable.

Click to expand...

Your argument fails because you compare outlier individuals of one class - humans - against the entirety of another class - animals. Humans as a class are moral agents. Animals as a class are not so as a class cannot have the same rights as humans.

Gaius46 said:

Your argument fails because you compare outlier individuals of one class - humans - against the entirety of another class - animals. Humans as a class are moral agents. Animals as a class are not so as a class cannot have the same rights as humans.

Click to expand...

Exactly. And note that any 'rights' bestowed upon other animals are designed to protect them from only one other animal--man. Every other animal gets to continue in its normal savage behavior. When the OP gets the fox to respect the rights of the hen, I will follow suit. Until then, no.

Korimyr the Rat said:

Yes, but what's wrong with speciesism? What is your moral objection to basing our moral values on what benefits humanity?

Click to expand...

Because, for example, it may result in suffering. I am of the mind that suffering is bad, that it ought not happen.

the_recruit said:

Because, for example, it may result in suffering. I am of the mind that suffering is bad, that it ought not happen.

Click to expand...

Suffering is an inevitable consequence of life. All living beings grow and thrive on the suffering and death of other living beings.

Korimyr the Rat said:

Suffering is an inevitable consequence of life. All living beings grow and thrive on the suffering and death of other living beings.

Click to expand...

No. Plants, for example, are alive and experience no suffering (presumably).

But I'm assuming you meant sentient life. But even sentient life doesn't need to suffer to be sentient life (even though most sentient life does in fact experience suffering). And I'm not talking about eliminating all suffering anyway. Suffering that can be avoided, should.

Brother AJ said:

LOL! Okay then... So do you say the same for humans? Humans are worth no more than your bacterium either? Give me a break... THINK about it for a second. It's NOT arbitrary. Possessing consciousness or awareness or SENTIENCE is necessary for an organism to care about their own well being AT ALL in the first place. You can't harm something that can't EXPERIENCE harm! THIS IS NOT HARD TO UNDERSTAND. It's inevitable that we are going to continue to widen our moral sphere because we recognize those that are able to suffer. If you can't suffer, then why should we care about how we treat you?!

Click to expand...

Are there no humans you don't care about? Do you react as strongly to news about deaths in Syria as you do about deaths in America? I care about humans more than bacteria because I'm more emotionally connected with humans, not simply because they're sentient.

All living things feel stress, all living things have a negative feedback system. A bacterium feels something when confronted with an inhospitable environment, you don't empathise with what the bacterium feels, so you don't think it's important, but it's pretty ****ing important to the bacterium.

Crovax said:

Until all humans have the basic right of life isnt it a bit silly to talk about other species

Click to expand...

Not really. After all, you rely on all of those creatures in order for you to live. They keep the soil viable for your food, sustain your body through both consumption and symbiosis (millions of critters live on and in your body and make your gut and skin function properly), and create air for you to breathe. I think sustenance and breathing are kinda important.

There have been human societies that have driven themselves to extinction by degrading their own environment, under the idea that humans "matter more," and I'm sure there will be more in the future.

Disrespecting their lives has a lot more consequences than just questionable ethics. It is infantile at best to write off the value of other species simply because there are humans suffering. In fact, part of the reasons humans suffer is because we chronically write off the value of other species, to say nothing of the general ethical baselessness of that opinion.

The circularity of simply blurting, "Well, humans matter more!" completely misses the question and displays an inability to think outside one's own selfish interests.

But the fact that you can't see how your interests are tied to that question is even more discouraging.

ttwtt78640 said:

Using a moral argument fails because other species are not bound by those moral "laws" of our species. Notice that the speaker used elephants, dogs and cats (pets?) rather than fish, cattle and poultry (livestock?) in his example of animals that should be spared pain and suffering. Rest assured that a bear or shark sees no moral problem when inflicting pain and suffering upon a seal chosen for a meal. They know that their bites/attacks are violent/painful and (generally) respect other members of their species - cannibalism is generally not practiced among many species of predator.

Click to expand...

I agree that the way he makes his argument is, in itself, displaying a bias towards animals people in our culture "like." After all, cows are actually known to fairly high empathy creatures, if not necessarily the smartest. There is evidence that even fish feel pain.

But I don't think "naturalism" totally flies as a counter-argument in itself. It's true the bear and the shark see no problem with killing stuff, and nor do I see any problem with humans doing so for the same reason: need.

But the bear and the shark kill as efficiently as they can, and only what they need.

Humans don't. We kill much more than we need, and we kill inefficiently even though we have the ability to kill more efficiently than any other critter on earth.

We create suffering that doesn't need to be there, for no valid reason, and we also cause more destruction to environments than is necessary for us to live. That, I think, is the big issue. And it's not only disrespectful of life, but a really bad idea for us and our survival.

This idea is not unique to Western environmentalists. Any old-school hunter -- modern or tribal -- teaches their charges to be thankful for the life of the animal, use everything they can, and try to only take the shot when they are as sure as possible they can kill quickly.

We know, fundamentally, that causing unnecessary suffering is wrong. We know that waste is both disrespectful to the life we took and, well, wasteful. We also know that killing animals itself is not wrong; that there are valid human needs met most effectively by killing, like any other predating animal.

The line of thinking above is why a vegetarian I know only eats meat when a friend of ours goes hunting and has everyone 'round for dinner. She has no problem with eating animals. She has a problem with wastefulness and disrespect for life.

But in a society where most of us, even many of the people running the operations, never have to see the killing -- don't have to see things like live animals being dropped into boiling oil pits or skinned, or entire forests being blighted for our newest geegaw obsession -- it's easy for us to ignore the huge amount of unnecessary suffering, destruction, and waste we cause for no excusable reason.

I've certainly seen it done far more effectively than the examples in the OP, but the question remains: what is our justification for that behaviour? When it would be so easy to do better, when no one has been able to present a reason why their lives are so without value or even deserving of the most basic level of respect, and when it would actually SERVE human needs to take better care of our environment, what is our justification for not doing so?

Brother AJ said:

LOL! Okay then... So do you say the same for humans? Humans are worth no more than your bacterium either? Give me a break... THINK about it for a second. It's NOT arbitrary. Possessing consciousness or awareness or SENTIENCE is necessary for an organism to care about their own well being AT ALL in the first place. You can't harm something that can't EXPERIENCE harm! THIS IS NOT HARD TO UNDERSTAND. It's inevitable that we are going to continue to widen our moral sphere because we recognize those that are able to suffer. If you can't suffer, then why should we care about how we treat you?!

Click to expand...

So, if I understand correctly, you suggest that A doing harm to B is wrong only if B is able to experience harm. More perspicuously:

A="A's doing harm to B is wrong"
B="B is able to experience harm/pain"

If A, then B

Right?

I'm curious how, in your view, a panpsychist should react to this principle--specifically a panpsychist who believes that literally everything in the universe has some experience.

Brother AJ said:

I'd like to revive a topic I've written about before:

Speciesism involves assigning different values or rights to beings on the basis of their species membership. The term was coined by British psychologist Richard D. Ryder in 1973:

"I use the word 'speciesism'," he explained two years later, "to describe the widespread discrimination that is practiced by man against other species. Speciesism and racism both overlook or underestimate the similarities between the discriminator and those discriminated against."

It is simply unjust and morally unacceptable to regard other animals (which have been acknowledged as sentient or conscious[SUP](1)[/SUP] beings) as mere objects or property. Humans tend to think and behave otherwise because we have been raised in a world where human supremacy is the normal and "good" position to follow.

All animals ought to have rights/protections and it is illogical to assign them a lesser moral value because of a perceived lack of rationality, while assigning a higher value to infants, young children, and the cognitively impaired solely on the grounds of them being members of the allegedly superior human species. Be it the hunting, consumption, experimentation on, or forced labor of other animals, speciesism is a very large and unspoken of blight within our so called "civilized" society. It needs to be an issue we are talking about every single day.

NOTE: Challenging "speciesism" doesn't necessarily mean one believes all species are of equal moral worth, but only that it would be irrational and unjust to deny the worth of another based solely on their species membership. There could easily be other reasons to value certain organisms less than humans and other animals such as them not possessing a capacity to feel pain and/or pleasure.

(1) Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness.

Please see the video below for a brief summary of the issues surrounding this topic:

Click to expand...

Animals are property. Rights are born from intelligence and reason, so until a cow publishes a book on the metaphysics of morality, they're property.

Brother AJ said:

"Circle of life", is not an argument. Please look at this as well, as it's all too common:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature

Apparently you have a problem with killing other animals unnecessarily, but you don't care whether we actually NEED to kill other animals for food?

Click to expand...

Meat is healthy, humans are meant to eat some meat(depending on your geographical location of your ancestry, some people need more meat than others). There is nothing wrong with killing animals for food. I am a apex predator, we have made methods that are much more humane, and domesticated animals so we are not taking the resources of the environment.

I think your "healthy" alternative methods are just biased- those studies are too motivated for their cause. Meat is an essential part of our diet.... some more-so than others.

jet57 said:

And so now the subject is about abortion?

Click to expand...

No, it's about killing a human animal. Dr. Ryder in his writings, refers to humans as human animals. Shouldn't human animals that feel pain, have feelings, and are also used for research be afforded the same rights as non human animals? It's about his scientific theory of speciesism. It doesn't have to be involving moral or religious beliefs. Excluding human animals from speciesism is akin to me conveniently excluding any animals that don't fit my agenda.

Tonawanda said:

No, it's about killing a human animal. Dr. Ryder in his writings, refers to humans as human animals. Shouldn't human animals that feel pain, have feelings, and are also used for research be afforded the same rights as non human animals? It's about his scientific theory of speciesism. It doesn't have to be involving moral or religious beliefs. Excluding human animals from speciesism is akin to me conveniently excluding any animals that don't fit my agenda.

Click to expand...

Actually Dr. Ryder wrote that speciesism is for the protection of non human animals. So, I don't now where you're getting your erroneous information but this topic should not have been turned into an abortion thread. It's supposed to be a philosophical discussion not a political one.

**(moderators: I'm not trying to do your job, just making a point)

You missed my point entirely. I know what his agenda is, and I know he refers to humans as human animals. Speciesism based on his own scientific research includes human animals, so I'm challenging his research and/or theory. If he cannot defend the contradiction, and you cannot without looking for help from the moderators, I've made my point. Speciesism is a ruse to support his position, and I'm quite certain you know it. Thank You

faithful_servant said:

Tell me one way in which a grizzly bear is superior to me. I can out run it by using my natural ability to build machines that propel me to speeds far in excess of anything a grizzly could ever hope to achieve. I can out-hunt it by the use of tools which my natural abilities give me the ability to create. I can survive in conditions which will kill a grizzly by use of my natural ability to alter my environment to fit my needs. This planet's most deadly predator is nothing more than a rug for my grandchildren to play on if I so choose to use my natural abilities to make it such. Put me up against a Great White and I win because I'm a better predator due to my natural ability to make explosives that will at least stun it to where I can kill it at my leisure and at worst kill it outright. You have this dumb idea that my natural ability to think, create and build are somehow outside of nature, yet they are just as much a part of nature as the deer who's flesh fills my freezer and feeds my family. Every other specie on Earth asserts it's dominance over other species by killing them or driving them out, but you think that human beings aren't part of nature, so you apply a separate set of standards to us. I am an animal, therefore how I behave is how animals behave. I am a part of nature, not apart from it. My superior intellect gives me the luxury to be merciful and caring towards animals whenever possible, but it also gives me the ability to kill, dominate, subjugate and "cultivate" those animals at my discretion. It is what my nature is and is nothing more or less part of nature than a grizzly in a river killing salmon at it's leisure (..and I can outfish every single grizzly ever born).

Click to expand...

Okay... grizzly bears can pick up scents from several MILES away, can you do that?

And the logical fallacies just keep on coming. None of what you cite here even matters because we don't advocate NOT killing and dominating human beings due to their superior intelligence, but because humans are capable of suffering. As I've already said, citing that some humans are more intelligent and stronger than some OTHER humans has always been used to justify killing and exploiting those humans. You're an apt example of history repeating itself yet again. We are capable of being better than "might makes right" like so many other animals are forced to live by. We don't get to kill and be cruel simply because other animals do these things.

Your appeal to nature indicates you wish to behave how other animals behave, but where does this justification end? Other animals kill and steal from each other, so does that mean humans should be able to do this within our own species? Of course not. You want to justify killing and dominating other animals by looking towards the behavior of other species because it's something you WANT to do, but you'll obviously stop doing this when it comes to justifying behavior that you see as immoral even though it is seen among other species. Unless you believe that "might makes right" when it comes to the question of how to treat other humans as well, and if that's the case then there's probably no point in trying to appeal to your sense of ethics in the first place.

Korimyr the Rat said:

Yes, but what's wrong with speciesism? What is your moral objection to basing our moral values on what benefits humanity?

Click to expand...

What's wrong with it? Well you might as well ask what's wrong with racism and sexism as well. Many of us are obviously tempted to prioritize the well being and prevention of suffering for those that are the most similar to ourselves, but that doesn't stop this inclination from being severely discriminatory and problematic. I object to prioritizing the well being of humanity because we are NOT the only ones that suffer. We are NOT more deserving of ethics and compassion simply because we possess certain DNA. Speciesism is wholly irrational and teaches us to value appearance and genetics rather than things that actually matter.

Gaius46 said:

Your argument fails because you compare outlier individuals of one class - humans - against the entirety of another class - animals. Humans as a class are moral agents. Animals as a class are not so as a class cannot have the same rights as humans.

Click to expand...

Referring to these types of humans as "outliers" doesn't make them go away. It is still irrational to treat them as you do other humans that DO comprehend ethics and laws. How you categorize organisms into these "classes" is rather arbitrary as well. We could just as easily refer to all of us, humans and other animals, as part of the "animal class." Regardless, I do not believe it is ethically sound to exclude individuals that don't comprehend ethics or laws from the moral community as this is not a condition that they can help. Toddlers and other humans that lack said comprehension ARE deserving of moral rights because they still possess the capacity for suffering, rather than just because they possess human DNA.

Fletch said:

Exactly. And note that any 'rights' bestowed upon other animals are designed to protect them from only one other animal--man. Every other animal gets to continue in its normal savage behavior. When the OP gets the fox to respect the rights of the hen, I will follow suit. Until then, no.

Click to expand...

Humans possess a greater capacity for ethics than any other animal, and so we should be subject to a different standard. We don't "get" to be violent and cruel merely because other animals behave this way. To suggest such a thing is absolutely ludicrous. This is similar to how we are subject to different standards than, say, young human children or the severely cognitively impaired.

spud_meister said:

Are there no humans you don't care about? Do you react as strongly to news about deaths in Syria as you do about deaths in America? I care about humans more than bacteria because I'm more emotionally connected with humans, not simply because they're sentient.

Click to expand...

I am certainly more inclined to value the humans, and animals, that are close to me more so than the ones I do not know, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t consider their sentience a factor. If you would choose to value a, for example, brain dead human to the same degree as any other human due to the former TECHINICALLY possessing human DNA then more power to you, but that doesn’t stop it from being ridiculously irrational.

All living things feel stress, all living things have a negative feedback system. A bacterium feels something when confronted with an inhospitable environment, you don't empathise with what the bacterium feels, so you don't think it's important, but it's pretty ****ing important to the bacterium.

Click to expand...

Yea, okay. I would absolutely LOVE for you to provide scientific evidence that supports your contention that “all living things feel stress.” Bacteria do not have central nervous systems or any other system that would allow us to believe that they can actually “experience” anything. Bacteria react to the environment around them, but then so do clouds and thermometers. A “reaction” does not automatically translate to an actual felt sensation or experience.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

I agree that the way he makes his argument is, in itself, displaying a bias towards animals people in our culture "like." After all, cows are actually known to fairly high empathy creatures, if not necessarily the smartest. There is evidence that even fish feel pain.

Click to expand...

Heh, well I have no idea where you’re getting this idea because I have made it perfectly clear that this discussion is essentially about ALL other animals. Let me now make it known that it is ESPECIALLY about farm or “food” animals such as pigs, chickens, cows, and fish as they make up the majority of animals that are harmed by human-kind.

But I don't think "naturalism" totally flies as a counter-argument in itself. It's true the bear and the shark see no problem with killing stuff, and nor do I see any problem with humans doing so for the same reason: need.

But the bear and the shark kill as efficiently as they can, and only what they need. Humans don't. We kill much more than we need, and we kill inefficiently even though we have the ability to kill more efficiently than any other critter on earth. We create suffering that doesn't need to be there, for no valid reason, and we also cause more destruction to environments than is necessary for us to live. That, I think, is the big issue. And it's not only disrespectful of life, but a really bad idea for us and our survival.

This idea is not unique to Western environmentalists. Any old-school hunter -- modern or tribal -- teaches their charges to be thankful for the life of the animal, use everything they can, and try to only take the shot when they are as sure as possible they can kill quickly. We know, fundamentally, that causing unnecessary suffering is wrong. We know that waste is both disrespectful to the life we took and, well, wasteful. We also know that killing animals itself is not wrong; that there are valid human needs met most effectively by killing, like any other predating animal.

Click to expand...

(emphasis mine)

That any amounts of people believe that something is morally acceptable doesn’t mean that it is, in fact, morally acceptable. First of all, we kill other animals today because of greed rather than need as humans do not require animal foods in order to thrive in life. Why is this “unnecessary suffering” not considered?

This isn’t necessarily addressing your position, but it’s interesting to me that people will constantly cite the behaviors of other animals as evidence that it is acceptable to eat meat, and then in the same breath say that it is only required that we treat these animals humanely REGARDLESS of the fact that many predators cause quite a lot of suffering for their prey before killing them. It is certainly “natural” that prey animals are subjected to horrendous suffering before being slaughtered, so why is it unacceptable for humans to do the same while eating meat is not? You can’t have it both ways.

ashurbanipal said:

So, if I understand correctly, you suggest that A doing harm to B is wrong only if B is able to experience harm. More perspicuously:
A="A's doing harm to B is wrong"
B="B is able to experience harm/pain"
If A, then B
Right?
I'm curious how, in your view, a panpsychist should react to this principle--specifically a panpsychist who believes that literally everything in the universe has some experience.

Click to expand...

Well, I’m not sure I can comfortably say how anyone should react to anything, but I will give these two pieces of advice:

1) Don't expect society to conform to your personally held beliefs without sufficient evidence supporting your claims.

2) Live in a way that causes the least amount of harm possible to all, but realize that there are some organisms/things that are basically impossible not to harm such as plants and bacteria as eating/eradicating them is necessary for basic survival.

Ikari said:

Animals are property. Rights are born from intelligence and reason, so until a cow publishes a book on the metaphysics of morality, they're property.

Click to expand...

This argument isn’t very sophisticated as you seemingly don’t make room for the inherent complications of this issue. First, you are simply begging the question that animals are property. Nothing is "property" until they are labeled as such. Second, and perhaps it was not your intention, a consistent application of this argument would ridiculously contend that all humans are property until they publish said book or have a significant understanding of the subject. Finally, your implication that only those that possess intelligence and reason should be awarded rights literally leaves millions upon millions of human-kind without these protections such as young children and the severely cognitively impaired.

Tonawanda said:

As it relates to pain, suffering and killing animals for sport, I am in agreement with you. However, using animals as a food source seems to be in keeping within the animal kingdom. I guess I can say hunger trumps intelligence (no pun intended).

Click to expand...

Perhaps you can try to understand why we shouldn’t be looking towards other animals as role models for behavior? Killing and stealing from each other is also in keeping within the animal the kingdom, so should humans follow suit? The situation is different because humans adhere to and understand moral/ethical obligations more so than any other animal, and so we should be subject to a different standard. It’s also worth noting that the animals that eat other animals do so for survival, but this simply not the case for humans today as we are perfectly capable of being healthy without consuming meat or any other animal product. .

I am pro-life with one exception, and would presume that all individuals following this belief are also. I would consider anything else hypocritical. I continue to value human life over rodents, frogs, and animals used for a food source along with some exceptions I haven’t considered.

Click to expand...

I think the abortion question is a different issue entirely really, but, regardless, I don’t think it’s a necessary subject to discuss the rights of nonhuman animals.

Tonawanda said:

No, it's about killing a human animal. Dr. Ryder in his writings, refers to humans as human animals. Shouldn't human animals that feel pain, have feelings, and are also used for research be afforded the same rights as non human animals? It's about his scientific theory of speciesism. It doesn't have to be involving moral or religious beliefs. Excluding human animals from speciesism is akin to me conveniently excluding any animals that don't fit my agenda.

Click to expand...

Discussing the rights of humans like you suggest would make this subject far too broad and unfocused. Why stop at abortion? Why not bring in racism, sexism, ableism, etc. into the mix? There’s nothing wrong with having a focus on a particular subject especially when marginalized groups require different and varied obligations from us as animals do.

Moreover, there are far too few that are discussing this issue when compared to those that discuss human rights and even abortion. It is more than acceptable and timely for other animals to receive some of the limelight.

celticwar17 said:

Meat is healthy, humans are meant to eat some meat(depending on your geographical location of your ancestry, some people need more meat than others). There is nothing wrong with killing animals for food. I am a apex predator, we have made methods that are much more humane, and domesticated animals so we are not taking the resources of the environment.

Click to expand...

Humans do not inherently require the consumption of meat, and this isn’t really debatable in this day and age. Also, why is it that there is nothing wrong with killing animals for food, but there IS with not slaughtering or treating them “humanely?” Do you understand that predators within the wild can often cause severe pain and suffering for their prey before they die? Couldn’t I just say that I am justified in not caring about animals being handled humanely because of this reality?

I think your "healthy" alternative methods are just biased- those studies are too motivated for their cause. Meat is an essential part of our diet.... some more-so than others.

Click to expand...

LOL… Oh really? Biased? All of these governmental and nutritional organizations have an agenda against animal products? It’s funny how conspiracy theories become so abundant and adopted when one doesn’t want to accept reality:

"Healthy eating may be best achieved with a plant-based diet, which we define as a regimen that encourages whole, plant-based foods and discourages meats, dairy products, and eggs as well as all refined and processed foods. We present a case study as an example of the potential health benefits of such a diet. Research shows that plant-based diets are cost-effective, low-risk interventions that may lower body mass index, blood pressure, HbA1C, and cholesterol levels. They may also reduce the number of medications needed to treat chronic diseases and lower ischemic heart disease mortality rates. Physicians should consider recommending a plant-based diet to all their patients, especially those with high blood pressure, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or obesity."

The Permanente Journal - Kaiser Permanente - Nutritional Update for Physicians: Plant-Based Diets

“It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.”

Position of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian diets. - PubMed - NCBI

British Dietetic Association: “Well planned vegetarian diets can be both nutritious and healthy. They have been associated with lower risks of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, obesity, certain types of cancer and lower blood cholesterol levels.”

www.bda.uk.com/foodfacts/vegetarianfoodfacts.pdf

Dietitians Association of Australia: “Vegan diets are a type of vegetarian diet, where only plant-based foods are eaten. They differ to other vegetarian diets in that no animal products are usually consumed or used. Despite these restrictions, with good planning it is still possible to obtain all the nutrients required for good health on a vegan diet.”

Vegan Diets | Dietitians Association of Australia

Dietitians of Canada: “A vegan eating pattern has many potential health benefits. They include lower rates of obesity, heart disease, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes and certain types of cancer. Other benefits include lower blood cholesterol levels and a lower risk for gallstones and intestinal problems. Vegans must make sure that enough nutrients like protein, iron, zinc, calcium, vitamins D and B12 and omega-3 fats are included. A well planned vegan diet can meet all of these needs. It is safe and healthy for pregnant and breastfeeding women, babies, children, teens and seniors.”

Dietitians of Canada - Eating Guidelines for Vegans

The Mayo Clinic: “A well-planned vegetarian diet can meet the needs of people of all ages, including children, teenagers, and pregnant or breast-feeding women. The key is to be aware of your nutritional needs so that you plan a diet that meets them.”

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/vegetarian-diet/HQ01596

Brother AJ said:

Okay... grizzly bears can pick up scents from several MILES away, can you do that?

And the logical fallacies just keep on coming. None of what you cite here even matters because we don't advocate NOT killing and dominating human beings due to their superior intelligence, but because humans are capable of suffering. As I've already said, citing that some humans are more intelligent and stronger than some OTHER humans has always been used to justify killing and exploiting those humans. You're an apt example of history repeating itself yet again. We are capable of being better than "might makes right" like so many other animals are forced to live by. We don't get to kill and be cruel simply because other animals do these things.

Your appeal to nature indicates you wish to behave how other animals behave, but where does this justification end? Other animals kill and steal from each other, so does that mean humans should be able to do this within our own species? Of course not. You want to justify killing and dominating other animals by looking towards the behavior of other species because it's something you WANT to do, but you'll obviously stop doing this when it comes to justifying behavior that you see as immoral even though it is seen among other species. Unless you believe that "might makes right" when it comes to the question of how to treat other humans as well, and if that's the case then there's probably no point in trying to appeal to your sense of ethics in the first place.

Click to expand...

In the animal kingdom might does make right. I'm the apex predator on this planet, I can kill anything that I choose to. By the laws of nature I get to do whatever I want to do, it's what makes me the most effective killing machine on this planet - I can even make other animals do my killing for me, now THAT'S the top of the food chain. I have trained the largest land animal on Earth to do my manual labor for me. I've altered whole species to fit my needs. I can alter my environment to fit me. As I already stated, I do choose to act morally towards other animals (a point you ignored and decided to continue your self-hate rant). That ability to choose i sjust another part of why I'm the best there is at anything on this planet. I can build machines that can outperform anything any other animal on Earth can do and that ability is part of my nature. You think that it places me outside nature, but it's my piece of nature's pie. It is every bit as natural as an otter using a rock to open oysters. My abilities are natural and a part of nature. But you'll never see that, you hate the human race too much to ever accept that we are a part of what you worship.