it follows logically because animals do not use human logic, they use animal logic. and in protecting their own young, they will harm humans. so, in feeding our kind, we will inevitably harm animals... hopefully less than is necessary, so that we harm humans less
the "sacred cow" argument doesn't hold up in the light of so much human suffering that needs to be attended to before other more lofty concerns
we can call animals people. in fact, many already have nonhuman personhood. it's an awesome concept. https://wearesonar.org/dolphin-and-whale-nonhuman-personhood/
in fact, india even gave personhood to rivers https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/nation-world/hc-says-ganga-yamuna-are-living-persons/believe-it-or-not/slideshow/57754739.cms
Also - btw, i don't know who's downvoting you. it's not me.
how? the river law is specifically made because giving them personhood means harming the rivers is akin to harming a human. that is done to counter the rampant pollution and waste that is killing all who depend on it for survival (humans and animals). that actively improves the lives of the most worst-off humans.
i mean, the point was to counter your argument about "legal personhood". and it's not dehumanising. humans don't aren't harmed by expanding the definition of personhood. just like white people are not harmed by ending racism. or men harmed by ending patriarchy.
firstly, our discussion veered off from "shaming people for their dietary habits" long ago. other people were more inclined to argue you on that. this line of discussion started because i wanted to understand what drives you to say humans deserve more rights than animals.
then, animals should absolutely be considered citizens given they live within the geographic territory. how we should enact and enforce that is different, but legally, they should. and no one, as of yet, has given animals citizenship anyways. the concept of nonhuman personhood is different.
i don't think it harms people to focus on the immorality of animal mistreatment. it altogether leads to a better way forward for all. no where would i advocate that people who eat animals are bad. i don't think i've ever said that since becoming a leftist. but that's different from the ethics and morality of animal consumption.
animals can only be considered human if humans were to be downgraded
we are talking about legal personhood, because that is the nexus through which human legal rights & social responsibility come into play
animals are protected legally in several ways from human acts of abuse, so I am not sure what we're discussing other than expanding legal codified language to include our personal preferences
okay, animals aren't considered humans. they're considered nonhuman people.
Human is a short way of saying Homo Sapiens. That is a specific species of hominids, which is a subsection of Mammalia, which is in Animalia, with is in Multicellular Organisms etc etc etc.
This is an important distinction because it re-frames the question. It is on the same spectrum of whether citizens and residents should be given the same rights, or whether white people and non-white people should be given the same rights. You may think animals aren't people, but others disagree. There is no reason to not consider animals people. Intelligence or brain size or whatever else is arbitrary.
What rights belong exclusively to humans and what rights belong exclusively to people and whether the two should be separate is an important ethical question.
yes, those things do mean that
it follows logically because animals do not use human logic, they use animal logic. and in protecting their own young, they will harm humans. so, in feeding our kind, we will inevitably harm animals... hopefully less than is necessary, so that we harm humans less
the "sacred cow" argument doesn't hold up in the light of so much human suffering that needs to be attended to before other more lofty concerns
you're using animal logic to justify human logic there bud.
and either way, this is an arbitrary distinction using specie-ism in place of past distinctions (like racism, sexism) etc.
humans are personified, and animals are not... pretty simple
what? humans are frequently "animalized" to justify their abuse. that doesn't mean animal abuse is justified?
abuse isn't justified, whether it's abuse against animals or humans
but animals don't have legal personhood... that's literally the distinction
laws can be made better, but we can't make animals into persons without displacing the lowest humans
we can call animals people. in fact, many already have nonhuman personhood. it's an awesome concept. https://wearesonar.org/dolphin-and-whale-nonhuman-personhood/
in fact, india even gave personhood to rivers https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/nation-world/hc-says-ganga-yamuna-are-living-persons/believe-it-or-not/slideshow/57754739.cms
Also - btw, i don't know who's downvoting you. it's not me.
it's not "awesome" it's just dehumanizing for those at the bottom of social consideration
how? the river law is specifically made because giving them personhood means harming the rivers is akin to harming a human. that is done to counter the rampant pollution and waste that is killing all who depend on it for survival (humans and animals). that actively improves the lives of the most worst-off humans.
i mean, the point was to counter your argument about "legal personhood". and it's not dehumanising. humans don't aren't harmed by expanding the definition of personhood. just like white people are not harmed by ending racism. or men harmed by ending patriarchy.
ecological concerns in larger & larger webs of consideration are far different than shaming people for their dietary habits & strictures
and it's far different than issuing citizenship to individual animals
it harms people to focus more on the "immorality" animals raised for human consumption than about humans themselves
okay, you're confusing a few terms here.
firstly, our discussion veered off from "shaming people for their dietary habits" long ago. other people were more inclined to argue you on that. this line of discussion started because i wanted to understand what drives you to say humans deserve more rights than animals.
then, animals should absolutely be considered citizens given they live within the geographic territory. how we should enact and enforce that is different, but legally, they should. and no one, as of yet, has given animals citizenship anyways. the concept of nonhuman personhood is different.
i don't think it harms people to focus on the immorality of animal mistreatment. it altogether leads to a better way forward for all. no where would i advocate that people who eat animals are bad. i don't think i've ever said that since becoming a leftist. but that's different from the ethics and morality of animal consumption.
animals can only be considered human if humans were to be downgraded
we are talking about legal personhood, because that is the nexus through which human legal rights & social responsibility come into play
animals are protected legally in several ways from human acts of abuse, so I am not sure what we're discussing other than expanding legal codified language to include our personal preferences
okay, animals aren't considered humans. they're considered nonhuman people.
Human is a short way of saying Homo Sapiens. That is a specific species of hominids, which is a subsection of Mammalia, which is in Animalia, with is in Multicellular Organisms etc etc etc.
This is an important distinction because it re-frames the question. It is on the same spectrum of whether citizens and residents should be given the same rights, or whether white people and non-white people should be given the same rights. You may think animals aren't people, but others disagree. There is no reason to not consider animals people. Intelligence or brain size or whatever else is arbitrary.
What rights belong exclusively to humans and what rights belong exclusively to people and whether the two should be separate is an important ethical question.