Speciesism

Originally posted by Palynka
Hi vistesd.

I agree with most with what you said so far, but I think that, for the purpose of this thread, one should abstain from considerations of affections that are grown through personal experience. Be it your cat or your wife, your affection for them makes you value them much more than you do other members of the same species. In that sense, I belie ...[text shortened]... peciesist (note that a misanthrope may also be considered speciesist, albeit in a reverse way).

In that sense, I believe that when thinking about speciesism one must think about how one values the life of unknown members of different species.

Hello, old friend!

I think you are right. And I suspect that “speciesism” may be an incorrect term for this whole question. I, for example, extend more moral consideration to species (such as elephants) whom I believe to have a higher level of consciousness, than I do to, say, a gnat.

Nevertheless, I will respond (hopefully) the same way to a human torturing a—bobcat, say—as I will to one torturing an animal for whom I have, as you put it, greater personal affection.

Originally posted by vistesd
This question is helpful in terms of highlighting those areas of my life where I do not live according to a pre-determined moral theory. There is no case, for instance, in which I will not act to prevent harm to my wife—whatever the nature or circumstance or justification for that harm. The same decision extends to beings that I love who are not human. I ...[text shortened]... _____________________________________


EDIT: I doubt that I have put any of this very well.

By the way, LJ, I do not see—based on my own research, how a fruit diet can provide—over the long run—the necessary protein (or even fat) for a nutritious diet.

What are you supposing the definition of 'fruit' is here? I was using a strict botanical definition, which includes many things which botanically are fruits but are not normally thought of as fruits. They would be thought of in normal parlance as vegetables and nuts (as normal parlance for 'fruit' just includes the fleshy sort with sweet natural sugars). I did not find it difficult to get fats and proteins (although the proteins under this sort of diet can be more difficult to digest). But there are definitely deficiencies in the diet, including some essential vitamins (e.g., B12). This can be alleviated with supplement. This underscores the simple fact that, as you say, we evolved as omnivores and are not in that sense ideally suited for a strictly fruit diet. In my experience, the strictly fruit diet was also difficult to stick to, especially in social settings.

This question is helpful in terms of highlighting those areas of my life where I do not live according to a pre-determined moral theory.

In my experience, nobody actually lives by a "pre-determined" (or exhaustively and comprehensively codified) moral theory. To suppose one can would be a mistake since some things are, as I mentioned before, very complicated and textured. Rather, I think the best we can do often is to just consider the deliverances of the virtues from within our circumstances. A good example is your fawn: sometimes the most compassionate thing to do is something that would in other circumstances often frustrate our intuition, like putting it down.

But surely it can’t mean that humans are exempt from the same evolutionary aspects of their development as coyotes, bobcats, hawks, bears and other predators

We aren't exempt in the sense that we cannot just simply slough off simple descriptive facts: for example, it is a simple fact that we have natural motivators and instincts toward predatoriness. We cannot change some of these simple facts, such as that we have evolved to eat meat as part of our diet; and such that we have strong natural motivators to eat meat (for example, meat tastes really good and provides what are essential ingredients for our "proper" function). But we are certainly different in our reflective psychology. I have the ability to distance myself from even some of my most deeply infixed evolutionary tendencies in a way that is unlike many other creatures. I have the ability to understand that just because there are many incorrigible facts about my evolutionarily informed nature, that doesn't have any normative implications about how I should carry myself or how I should let that nature play out. I have the ability, unlike many other creatures, to reflect on the deliverances of the virtues from within my own circumstances.

Our holding these evolutionary tendencies is perfectly natural and perfectly innocent on our part, but when I distance myself from those I can, I feel that some of them are misguided, all things considered. My circumstances I would say are very privileged in the sense that I have excessive wealth; I have very large availability and selection of foods; I don't have to hunt and gather for my foods; I don't even have to divest much energy at all in the procurement of a wide selection of foods. Under my circumstances, I also have some knowledge: I know that some of our current practices in the animal food industries sacrifice many things I value (like the living conditions and treatment of the animals involved -- apart from the fact that we are also simply killing them in mass for certain industries) in order to meet demand. I have no desire to go out and hunt my food for dinner tonight (if I were not opposed to hunting); rather I would be dependent on these markets, and characteristically they have not shown themselves to be worthy of my support (even if it were the case that we had to eat animal products to survive, we would still have obligation to much further minimize the pain and suffering -- these are the kind of corners that get rounded quickly). Further, I know that I can do perfectly fine without meat, and my consumption of meat would mean that more conscious spheres are extinguished. Under my circumstances, I think the deliverances of the virtues are clear on this issue.

Again, I do not think there is a simple codification here concerning what to do. You stated that if you had to hunt to live, then you would. Well, so would I -- of course! I would also do whatever I had to do to provide for the ones I love. Again, I think it is about reflecting on the delieverances of practical reason from within our own circumstances. But even in those cases where I would feel compelled toward predatoriness, I would still feel compelled to go even out of my way, if necessary, for the "quick" kill (essentially demonstrating what you described as your hunting ethic).

I'm not sure I have put anything in this thread very well. I am mostly concerned with the consideration that we afford other species. And as usual, my interests are with the justification for our practices. I am trying to foster both concern for other species and their well-being and critical inspection of our practices. Part of doing this is simply to identify where there is insufficient underlying consideration and to force people to at least consider the idea of justification. If I can at least get people to critically inspect their practices and to at least consider the integrity of them and their underlying reasons, that is a big, big step. Religion, frankly, is often a scourge in this area, since 1) it is often profoundly anthropocentric and 2) it often acts to contravene critical inspection on the part of its adherents. For example, this is always true of fundamentalist systems. However, some -- such as Buddhist systems I am familiar with -- are actually very good at emphasizing the deliverances of compassion toward other species.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I think it's merely a question of recognising that animals are different from mankind. There's nothing in the Bible that I know of that justifies the ill treatment of animals (battery chickens etc ). I think we are supposed to be custodians rather than butchers and rapers of the landscape. The native americans just about got it right. They ate the buff ...[text shortened]... We traul for cod and destroy their eggs with it , no aborigine would dream of such madness.

I think it's merely a question of recognising that animals are different from mankind.

Could you explain what you mean? What is the key difference in your opinion?

I think we are supposed to be custodians rather than butchers and rapers of the landscape.

I agree. For example, in genesiac account it states something along the lines that god has granted us dominion over the other species. In my mind, this is metaphor for the fact that, as I mentioned above, we have the further ability to distance ourselves from our basic tendencies and to consider the interests of other species. This means, essentially, that the nature of mentality has entrusted us with the interests of other species as well as our own (whether we like that fact or not).

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I don't think the value given animals is exclusively based on their usefulness to humans, at least not in the Christian tradition. Yes, God orders the world so that humans are in a position to rule over the animals, but, after God creates everything, He surveys all that He has done (including the creation of the various animal species) and declares that ...[text shortened]... n individual ought to seek to understand that value recognized by God in every created thing.

Yes, God orders the world so that humans are in a position to rule over the animals

What does that mean, exactly?

Originally posted by vistesd
Despite my rambling posts above, I don’t think the question is whether or not one should be a vegetarian, or whether some species may or may not be given some moral preference (e.g., animals who may have a certain level of consciousness that permits more intensive—even psychological—suffering), but the more basic question of whether non-human animals warrant ...[text shortened]... raw upon.

Perhaps I am just confused, and should just read what others offer at this point…

Despite my rambling posts above, I don’t think the question is whether or not one should be a vegetarian, or whether some species may or may not be given some moral preference (e.g., animals who may have a certain level of consciousness that permits more intensive—even psychological—suffering), but the more basic question of whether non-human animals warrant any moral consideration at all beyond simply instrumental considerations of human use.

That's more along the idea I had in mind. When I started this thread, I had no intention of discussing the morality of eating (although I think it is broadly relevant).

Originally posted by Palynka
What's wrong with Speciesism?

I meant 'speciesism' in the colloquial sense which carries pejorative connotation (for instance, 'exploitation' of animals). I didn't mean it in a strict technical sense, although surely there is something wrong with discrimination merely on the basis of species membership. Like, for example, that it's effectively arbitrary.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I meant 'speciesism' in the colloquial sense which carries pejorative connotation (for instance, 'exploitation' of animals). I didn't mean it in a strict technical sense, although surely there is something wrong with discrimination merely on the basis of species membership. Like, for example, that it's effectively arbitrary.

I don't know LJ. You seem to go from the human-centered view of religions to that kind of speciesism a little too fast. I can see it necessarily implying the kind of speciesism I was alluding to, but not one where the degree of subordination of other species is near absolute.

It's probably genetic that we feel that way. If we have such a moral preference due to biological conditions, can we truly define it as arbitrary? Would you categorize moral preferences based on hedonism as arbitrary?

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]By the way, LJ, I do not see—based on my own research, how a fruit diet can provide—over the long run—the necessary protein (or even fat) for a nutritious diet.

What are you supposing the definition of 'fruit' is here? I was using a strict botanical definition, which includes many things which botanically are fruits but are not normally lly very good at emphasizing the deliverances of compassion toward other species.[/b]

This underscores the simple fact that, as you say, we evolved as omnivores and are not in that sense ideally suited for a strictly fruit diet. In my experience, the strictly fruit diet was also difficult to stick to, especially in social settings.

Well, that says it better than I did. (I did misunderstand your use of “fruit”—my, embarrassing, fault there.) Although there is certainly disagreement among experts, I would take a diet that includes protein as at least roughly 30% of one’s caloric intake to be more healthful than diets with lesser amounts. I also think, as you may well, too, that a diet high in grains is problematic.

I have the ability to understand that just because there are many incorrigible facts about my evolutionarily informed nature, that doesn't have any normative implications about how I should carry myself or how I should let that nature play out. I have the ability, unlike many other creatures, to reflect on the deliverances of the virtues from within my own circumstances.

Yes, of course. However, suppose there are hunter-gatherer-horticulturalist societies (as there are) who do not want to give up what they view as the quality of life that such an existence provides, even if alternative sources of nutrition (such as the supplements you mention) could be readily made available. They are rational and reflective folks, who have been made aware of the options—including alternative labor to acquire the means to survive.

Do you think there is any moral imperative for them to relinquish their lifestyle, which includes the hunting and killing of animals?

Further, I know that I can do perfectly fine without meat

I do not know this, for the long haul that is. I do avoid meats of animals that I think have been kept and processed in cruel ways favoring such things as free-range animals. There is also fish. There is also the health value of reducing one’s caloric intake below standard levels of a “conventional” western diet.

Again, I do not think there is a simple codification here concerning what to do.

Well, I should know by now that you wouldn’t. I should add that my decision not to hunt was not a moral one; and I do not think that it in any way abrogates my responsibility for the killing of the animals whose meat I eat. I allow our property to be a kind of small “game preserve”. But, for some species, there is the problem that we have killed off so many of the other natural predators, that such things as winter famine occur.

None of which is really germane to your main point…

I'm not sure I have put anything in this thread very well.

Better than I think I have…

Religion, frankly, is often a scourge in this area, since 1) it is often profoundly anthropocentric and 2) it often acts to contravene critical inspection on the part of its adherents. For example, this is always true of fundamentalist systems. However, some -- such as Buddhist systems I am familiar with -- are actually very good at emphasizing the deliverances of compassion toward other species.

I would say that some of the animistic religions (e.g., among American Indians), with their recognition of other species as “people” (some of whom include human beings in their diet) are good at emphasizing those deliverances as well.

EDIT: I apologize for getting off on the meat-eating tangent.

Originally posted by Palynka
I don't know LJ. You seem to go from the human-centered view of religions to that kind of speciesism a little too fast. I can see it necessarily implying the kind of speciesism I was alluding to, but not one where the degree of subordination of other species is near absolute.

It's probably genetic that we feel that way. If we have such a moral preference ...[text shortened]... define it as arbitrary? Would you categorize moral preferences based on hedonism as arbitrary?

It's probably genetic that we feel that way

Are you even bothering to read the rest of my posts? Are you even bothering to address the actual content of my posts? You're hung up on my colloquial use of 'speciesism', which I find understandable because I was trying to be somewhat inflammatory (if you're not a little inflammatory, no one will listen typically).

Yes, I know that many of our feelings and tendencies are genetic. Part of my pitch here is exactly that: but, we can stand back from them and critically assess them.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]It's probably genetic that we feel that way

Are you even bothering to read the rest of my posts? Are you even bothering to address the actual content of my posts? You're hung up on my colloquial use of 'speciesism', which I find understandable because I was trying to be somewhat inflammatory (if you're not a little inflammatory, no one will li ...[text shortened]... my pitch here is exactly that: but, we can stand back from them and critically assess them.[/b]

LOL! In your previous post you redirect me by saying you were using it in the colloquial sense (and not in the strict technical sense I was initially intending) and now you tell me that I'm "hung up" on your colloquial use?

Give me a break. Maybe you are the one that needs to read your own posts.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]This underscores the simple fact that, as you say, we evolved as omnivores and are not in that sense ideally suited for a strictly fruit diet. In my experience, the strictly fruit diet was also difficult to stick to, especially in social settings.

Well, that says it better than I did. (I did misunderstand your use of “fruit”—my, embarrassing, faul ...[text shortened]... those deliverances as well.

EDIT: I apologize for getting off on the meat-eating tangent.[/b]

Do you think there is any moral imperative for them to relinquish their lifestyle, which includes the hunting and killing of animals?

No. I do not take it to be the case that there are moral imperatives (although I tend to think a lot in terms of hypothetical imperatives). There are many cultures that are very respectful of the environment, even in their predatoriness. They essentially take only what they feel they need and utilize the resources well. They are actually very conscientious, and I respect that. They obviously take their place in the environment seriously. I am not asking that people change their lifestyles according to some simple rules again as if these things could be codified. I am only asking that they consider justification for their practices, given their circumstances.

I do not know this, for the long haul that is.

A lot of people have gone without meat for the long haul with no serious complications. Of course, it's possible that you would run into serious complications even given this. Actually, if one is concerned about protein, I would recommend augmenting the otherwise vegetarian diet with fish. From my research, the mentality of fish is very interesting, and the extent of their consciousness is not entirely clear. There is much debate over to what extent they experience conscious states like pain and to what extent they can suffer.

Originally posted by Palynka
LOL! In your previous post you redirect me by saying you were using it in the colloquial sense (and not in the strict technical sense I was initially intending) and now you tell me that I'm "hung up" on your colloquial use?

Give me a break. Maybe you are the one that needs to read your own posts.

Got anything interesting to add?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Got anything interesting to add?

I already did. Of course, "interesting" is a relative concept.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Do you think there is any moral imperative for them to relinquish their lifestyle, which includes the hunting and killing of animals?

No. I do not take it to be the case that there are moral imperatives (although I tend to think a lot in terms of hypothetical imperatives). There are many cultures that are very respectful of the environment, ev ...[text shortened]... r to what extent they experience conscious states like pain and to what extent they can suffer.[/b]

I do not take it to be the case that there are moral imperatives (although I tend to think a lot in terms of hypothetical imperatives).

I agree.

A lot of people have gone without meat for the long haul with no serious complications.

Are you aware of any statistical studies on this. Most of what I have found in the past is anecdotal (and a lot of what I have read is in the field of anthropology). In my statement there, I think I was including fish—perhaps the apt phrase is “animal/fish protein”.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Got anything interesting to add?

When I am hungry I eat. I eat food I see and food I see not. I am what I eat. I respect what I eat. I respect Life.



But this is not interesting at all😵