I disagree. While biologically humans are not qualitatively different from animals in biological terms there should be qualitatively different in ethical terms. Even if it is just on the basis of being of the same species, a pattern often found in social animal species too. The binary human-non human is necessary, as it creates a clear framework. The moment you elevate any animal to the same ethical value, by denying the concept of evaluating the value of life differently based on species, you inadvertly devalue human life.
Also it is a concept that i have only found in white western countries. Most people in the world cannot afford to think in such terms, as for them using animal products is a matter of survival. By saying it is unethical to consider human life more valueable by default, you open another attack angle, claiming those people would be “barbaric”, opening up discrimination. Incidently these people actually appreciate animal life and have a deep respect for animals, treating their livestock much better than most western societies do.
From Buddhists (e.g. normal buddhist people, not Monks for whom eating meat is forbidden), over Muslims, to indigenous people in South America. Animal cruelty is fundamentely prohibited in the religious and cultural frameworks, while acknowledging the necessity to kill and eat them. When hunting or slaughtering animals it is mandated to praise the animal and remind yourself of the preciousness of it, and acknowledge the gratefulness that it deserves for nourishing you. Attacking those people as “unethical” for not thinking in terms of anti-sepcieism would get you rejected and rightfully so.
The framework of anti-specieism can only exist as a reaction to the commodification of animal life in capitalist societies. And like the greed in capitalism it is over the top and counter productive. By elevating the necessary reaction to the missdevelopment in our societies to a fundamental ethical principle that fails in the life reality outside of our societies, anti-sepcieism is not only denying those life realities, it is also supremacist in itself and an insult to the many people that are much more cultured than capitalist societies, where this supposed principle is coming from.
And just to be clear, i’m strictly against cruelty animal cruelty and cruelty in general. But this should be a given and in the aforementioned cultured societies it is, without having to equate the value of animal life to human life. (Or other animal life in biological terms) But this is quite simple to integrate in a larger cultural framework without fetishized greed like in capitalism. If you only take what you truly need and feel respect and gratitude towards what nourishes you, it becomes obvious that animal cruelty is wrong, just as destroying nature for mining, or slash burning for tobacco, palm oil and other cash crops is wrong.
I disagree. While biologically humans are not qualitatively different from animals in biological terms there should be qualitatively different in ethical terms. Even if it is just on the basis of being of the same species, a pattern often found in social animal species too. The binary human-non human is necessary, as it creates a clear framework. The moment you elevate any animal to the same ethical value, by denying the concept of evaluating the value of life differently based on species, you inadvertly devalue human life.
Also it is a concept that i have only found in white western countries. Most people in the world cannot afford to think in such terms, as for them using animal products is a matter of survival. By saying it is unethical to consider human life more valueable by default, you open another attack angle, claiming those people would be “barbaric”, opening up discrimination. Incidently these people actually appreciate animal life and have a deep respect for animals, treating their livestock much better than most western societies do.
From Buddhists (e.g. normal buddhist people, not Monks for whom eating meat is forbidden), over Muslims, to indigenous people in South America. Animal cruelty is fundamentely prohibited in the religious and cultural frameworks, while acknowledging the necessity to kill and eat them. When hunting or slaughtering animals it is mandated to praise the animal and remind yourself of the preciousness of it, and acknowledge the gratefulness that it deserves for nourishing you. Attacking those people as “unethical” for not thinking in terms of anti-sepcieism would get you rejected and rightfully so.
The framework of anti-specieism can only exist as a reaction to the commodification of animal life in capitalist societies. And like the greed in capitalism it is over the top and counter productive. By elevating the necessary reaction to the missdevelopment in our societies to a fundamental ethical principle that fails in the life reality outside of our societies, anti-sepcieism is not only denying those life realities, it is also supremacist in itself and an insult to the many people that are much more cultured than capitalist societies, where this supposed principle is coming from.
And just to be clear, i’m strictly against cruelty animal cruelty and cruelty in general. But this should be a given and in the aforementioned cultured societies it is, without having to equate the value of animal life to human life. (Or other animal life in biological terms) But this is quite simple to integrate in a larger cultural framework without fetishized greed like in capitalism. If you only take what you truly need and feel respect and gratitude towards what nourishes you, it becomes obvious that animal cruelty is wrong, just as destroying nature for mining, or slash burning for tobacco, palm oil and other cash crops is wrong.