Abstaining from Meat Indicates You Favor Animal 'Rights'
If you think eating a turkey is morally equivalent to eating your cousin, you
shouldn't eat meat. But for the 99.9 percent of us who don't buy that line of
malarkey, it's just fine to tuck into a ham sandwich or a cheeseburger.
Big-money vegan groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the
Humane Society of the United States are well known to oppose meat-eating for
the reason that it offends their philosophical sensibilities. The idea behind
their social movement is commonly referred to as species equality, animal rights,
or animal liberation.
Species equality is a very radical philosophy. Put simply, it is the rejection
of "speciesism," which animal rights advocates view as an immoral discrimination
between humans and animals—including cows, pigs, chickens, and even bees and
lab rats.
One of the problems with the whole species-equality position is that it fails
to recognize the exceptional qualities of human beings. We're the only species
that can reason, for instance. We could choose to bestow "rights" on
a veal calf (the right to not be eaten, for instance), but there's no rationale
for believing the animal could even comprehend the concept.
For those of us who disagree with the view that there's nothing special about
humanity, eating meat is not immoral.
Here are just a few examples of prominent activists who see things through, shall
we say, a different lens.
- PETA president Ingrid Newkirk: "There's no rational basis
for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is
a boy. They're all animals. - Animal activist (and former PETA employee) Gary Yourofsky: "What
we must do is start viewing every cow, pig, chicken, monkey, rabbit, mouse,
and pigeon as our family members." - Former Humane Society of the United States vice president Michael
W. Fox: "The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted
equal consideration."
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
I truly think this website need much more consideration. You made some decent points there.
When I originally commented I clicked the -Notify me when new comments are added- checkbox and now every time a remark is added I get 4 emails with the identical comment. Is there any approach you may take away me from that service? Thanks! Insomnia moralization Vps sbs2003 hosting low cost Cashbook
This argument is logically wrongheaded. Turkeys aren't equivalent to my cousin, but they are semi-conscious animals that feel things like pain, anxiety, and fear.
You DO NOT have to think animals are EQUAL TO HUMANS to TREAT THEM WELL.
There are plenty of reasons to go vegetarian or vegan:
1) for your health
2) for the environment
3) for animals
4) for religious reasons
5) for economical reasons
Abstaining from meat does not necessarily indicate that you favor animal rights.
No one denies that humans have certain exceptional qualities. (So do members of every species, for that matter.) In particular, most of us (though not all), can reason about morality. Unfortunately, the author of the above argument displays very poor reasoning about animal liberation. Just as all humans are morally equal, despite different intellectual abilities, so all sentient beings can be entitled to equal respect and equal consideration of their interests, even though they may have very different intellectual abilities.
The basic idea at the root of animal liberation is not rocket science. It is "If you don't have to harm someone else, then you shouldn't." Non-human animals, just as human animals, have lives that matter to them -- things they want and things they want to avoid. To impose unnecessary suffering and death on those who wish to live and flourish cannot be morally justified. It is the consistent application of the Golden Rule that underpins the commitment to animal liberation. The crackpot dogma of human exceptionalism is prejudice and fear masquerading as "consumer freedom".
CCF is engaging in circular reasoning: We characterize - arbitrarily - certain characteristics that only humans (allegedly) possess (e.g., reason, human language) as “important” or morally substantive. As humans are the group doing the defining, and the characteristics are meant to be species specific, by definition, nonhumans are excluded from the moral community in the final calculus. The rules of the game are such that the outcome is pre-determined. It’s a simple reiteration of undefended beliefs masquerading as a rational defense of those undefended beliefs.
And finally, this isn’t a discourse about how humans and nonhumans are “perfect equals” as CCF baselessly argues. The argument against eating animals follows from our strongly held premise against unnecessary suffering. As Singer writes, “In suffering, we are all equal.” Therefore, why is nonhuman suffering discounted as morally unimportant when the logic of our own premise demands its inclusion?
"If you think enslaving a white man is morally equivalent to enslaving a black man, then you shouldn't have slaves". We can see how they want to turn it into a matter of choice. The CCF wants you to think that AR is giving animals the right to vote, drive a car, or sue you. AR is just the right to not be property. Radical? Yes. Like giving women voting rights. It requires changing our behavior. In this case: towards animals, by not using them. Was the abolition of slavery radical? You bet it was. And it changed the world forever. Humans exceptional? We actually expect humans to step up to the plate. Reason? We have reason, we can choose to not use animals. A calf can't understand a right? A mentally impaired human can't either. So what? They suffer just as we do. "Choosing" to believe that something is not wrong, does not make it right. What if we choose to believe that raping babies is not wrong? Would that make it right? Or a "matter of choice"? I don't think so.
You don’t support your own argument. From your comments, I gather you suggest that there is something wrong with animal rights, but then you fail to explain why. All you say is that most people don't see things this way. Really? You're going to base an ethical argument on peer pressure? Your only other argument is that a veal cow doesn't know it's being bestowed rights. First, you need to back up and see that a right is simply the protection of an interest. Are you saying that an animal has no interests? Second, I suggest you learn about moral agents/patients. Many believe that children cannot reason such abstract concepts as rights until around age 12. Perhaps a young child would be delicious in some infant gravy, but we moral agents bestow upon them the right not to be harmed by others, and we uphold those rights whether or not the children recognize it.
The use of sarcasm and bandwagoning is a embarrassing in an adult debate.