A thought for the day from the animal advocacy community.
Monday, October 10, 2011
What I want is a society where humans do not regard themselves as ...
What I want is a society where humans do not regard themselves as superior to other animals, so that other creatures are no longer exploited, persecuted, enslaved and killed by human beings. ~ Ronnie Lee
Does a shark consider itself superior to a fish? Does a lion consider itself superior to a zebra? Or do these animals simply collect their food in the most efficient way they know how?
Michelle, you raise a valid point, but consider this: Animal carnivores kill a) for food that they naturally require to survive and b) one animal at a time, an animal that has previously roamed free in its natural environment. Humans, on the other hand, do not require flesh to survive and, far from the sustainable and natural killing methods of lions or sharks, subject billions of animals to life imprisonment, constant pain, physical and mental torture, and ultimately cruel and undignified deaths. There really is very little ground to equate the way we treat animals to that of an animal carnivore.
Hi Michelle. Robin suggests that you raise a valid point - however, I cannot see it myself. Your comment does not seem to have any relevance to what Ronnie Lee has said. For example, he makes it clear that he's talking about human attitudes to other animals, and about the killing of other animals ~by~ humans.
We usually do not take too many moral lessons from nonhuman animals on the grounds that we tend to see them as other than moral agents. There are interesting debates about that - but what we suggest is absolutely certain is that human animals are moral agents (most are anyway) and, therefore, what we do when it comes to getting our dinner, is an ethical matter.
Unlike other animals, human beings are able to make a conscious choice about whether or not to kill other creatures for food. Because we have that power of choice, we are therefore morally obliged to make the most humane choice in terms of our diet. Human beings can survive perfectly well without consuming animal products. Therefore it is morally wrong for us to consume such products, in view of the fact that their production causes suffering and death to other animals. If it not necessary for humans to eat other animals for survival, then the only reason humans are doing it is for pleasure and surely the causing of slaughter and suffering to other animals purely for human pleasure is morally reprehensible.
Does a shark consider itself superior to a fish? Does a lion consider itself superior to a zebra? Or do these animals simply collect their food in the most efficient way they know how?
ReplyDeleteMichelle, you raise a valid point, but consider this: Animal carnivores kill a) for food that they naturally require to survive and b) one animal at a time, an animal that has previously roamed free in its natural environment. Humans, on the other hand, do not require flesh to survive and, far from the sustainable and natural killing methods of lions or sharks, subject billions of animals to life imprisonment, constant pain, physical and mental torture, and ultimately cruel and undignified deaths. There really is very little ground to equate the way we treat animals to that of an animal carnivore.
ReplyDeleteHi Michelle. Robin suggests that you raise a valid point - however, I cannot see it myself. Your comment does not seem to have any relevance to what Ronnie Lee has said. For example, he makes it clear that he's talking about human attitudes to other animals, and about the killing of other animals ~by~ humans.
ReplyDeleteWe usually do not take too many moral lessons from nonhuman animals on the grounds that we tend to see them as other than moral agents. There are interesting debates about that - but what we suggest is absolutely certain is that human animals are moral agents (most are anyway) and, therefore, what we do when it comes to getting our dinner, is an ethical matter.
To answer your questions in order, Michelle:
ReplyDeleteNo, No and Yes.
What implications would you like for someone to draw from these obvious answers?
Unlike other animals, human beings are able to make a conscious choice about whether or not to kill other creatures for food. Because we have that power of choice, we are therefore morally obliged to make the most humane choice in terms of our diet. Human beings can survive perfectly well without consuming animal products. Therefore it is morally wrong for us to consume such products, in view of the fact that their production causes suffering and death to other animals. If it not necessary for humans to eat other animals for survival, then the only reason humans are doing it is for pleasure and surely the causing of slaughter and suffering to other animals purely for human pleasure is morally reprehensible.
ReplyDelete