Long reads, short reads, interesting articles that aren't straight up news or clickbait.
The Case Against Speciesism - Sentience Politics
The Case Against Speciesism - Sentience Politics
A full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversible animal, than an infant of a day, a week or even a month old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk?
sentience-politics.org




It truly is amazing to see the lengths that some people will go to to project Human values onto animals. Don't get me wrong: I'm all for recognizing the rights of animals like great apes, cetaceans, and cephalopods. The thing is, what separates us and these animals is that we are capable not just of knowing things but knowing that we know things. A fish can make opportunistic use of materials in its day-to-day life, there's no doubt about that, but to propose that any fish is capable of inventing something is ridiculous. A fish does not recognize the gravity of its accomplishments; it's not that they simply do not understand what a tool is but that they cannot understand, lacking the necessary neurological adaptations to do so. Rather, when it performs these actions it does so based on raw instinct.
The thought process a fish undertakes when it is hunting or fleeing is no greater a sign of true thinking than a chicken getting the urge to eat when it is hungry, or a tree deploying a chemical defence signal when threatened, or an amoeba choosing to pursue a nearby cell. It is a very complex process, sure, but when compared against the neurological processes undertaken by Humans they're very simple. We ought to be protecting animals, sure, but just because they occasionally emulate behaviours we sometimes see in ourselves doesn't magically make them people.
What do you mean by "Human values"? It truly is amazing to see the lengths that some people will go to justify their abuse of animals.
Well, you can ignore the arguments being made. There are humans less intelligent than these animals, yet it is wrong to kill them. Clearly it's not intelligence or the capacity you are describing that allows us to kill one but not the other.
Good thing no one claimed they were human. You aren't addressing the arguments in good faith.
Things like saying that because a chicken can form a Pavlovian response it must therefore be capable of learning as Humans do, or because a fish can use "tools" it must be capable of using them in the same capacity as Humans, or because a dog plays it must do so for the same reasons we do.
The argument being made is that because animals participate in activities also observed in Humans that we are equals. I'm not ignoring that, I merely chose the passage which most concisely illustrates that point as an example for why that idea is based on faulty logic.
The amount of thought that goes into the actions of animals like fish or chickens is equivalent to that of very basic processes like breathing or cellular division. If a person is less capable of thought than these animals, that person is already dead.
The whole "we shouldn't kill animals" idea only came up in one paragraph and was not what I was addressing. Whether we should be killing animals is a different discussion entirely than whether or not they are our intellectual rivals.
Nobody claimed they were Human, but the author makes it pretty clear that these animals ought to be looked at as our equals, hence my use of the term 'people'.
Kind of ridiculous to say I'm not addressing the author's arguments in good faith just a few sentences after accusing me of advocating animal abuse.
Who made this claim? I see the claim that fish can use tools, and a source to back that up. Who said fish can use tools as humans do?
Equals in what regard? Did you even read the earlier paragraphs?
You are misrepresenting the author and ignoring the core arguments.
How can someone that apparently studies anthropology be so misinformed? There are references on the site! Read them. Your assertion that animals are, "basically already dead" is hysterical. The amount of self-delusion that takes is impressive. I hope you don't think people with mental disabilities are basically already dead and thus you are justified in murdering them, otherwise I hope you find yourself in a cell shortly.
I think you are so unfamiliar with the topic that you are having trouble understanding it, to be honest.
You misunderstand. Read again:
.
Farming animals is animal abuse.
That's the entire point of the paragraph. Just because it isn't explicitly said doesn't mean that's not what's being said. If that's not what the author meant to say, there'd be no point to saying it.
Yes. The author claims that we should regard ourselves as animals among animals rather than people above animals.
Just saying this over and over again doesn't make it true.
I'm not an anthropologist and never claimed to be, so I don't know where you got that from.
I did. Scientific American reported that certain fish participate in certain behaviours and the author of this article took that to mean more than it really does.
That's not my assertion. What I'm saying is that animals performing these actions are acting on base instincts which require no greater cognitive effort than breathing or recognizing when they are hungry.
Again, not what I'm saying. Neurodivergent folks can make judgements and perform tasks of their own volition, which is more than most animals are capable of. I could just as easily accuse you of saying that someone with autism is less intelligent than a chicken based on your statements, but I'm not looking to demonize some rando based on a few snippets of their opinions.
What topic is that? Psychology, biology, neurology, animal rights...?
No, I read it fine the first time, and the second time when I thought I might have misunderstood the argument. The author is saying we shouldn't treat animals like Humans but that we ought to recognize them as our equals since we are no less animal than they are; in essence, they are saying that animals should be granted rights (hence the references to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in there) equivalent to persons.
I never advocated for farming, not in my original post or my reply.
The point is to show we aren't exceptional in ways we tend to think. "Humans can use tools, unlike the animals" is often said. Just because humans tend to be better at tool creation and use doesn't mean tool creation and use is exclusive to our species.
Yes, and? Equal in what regards? Can define equal for me. I still don't understand what you mean. I know what the author means, but I don't know what you mean.
Sure, but I'm letting you know how nonsensical you sound.
Apparently I don't remember exactly what you are studying, sorry.
Where does cognitive effort fit into the argument?
You misunderstand. Read again:
This is called the argument from marginal cases.
Speciesism. Animal rights. Moral philosophy.
You still haven't defined equal. Equal consideration of interests =/= Equals (ambiguous). Yes, we should grant them rights not to be abused and killed. Why is this disagreeable?
Glad to hear you've become vegan.
Between the anonymous posting, overly-aggressive discourse, and upvoting/liking your own post & comments, it really should have been more obvious to me that I was talking to one of Imzy's hyper-vigilant vegans.
I don't know you, and you shouldn't presume to know me. I don't remember ever discussing my field of study in this community, but if I left enough of an impression that you've decided to remember tiny tidbits of information to use as leverage in a future discussion then it's clear you're too obsessed - if not just too plain deranged - to engage in any sort of rational discourse.
What's wrong with being vegan? Isn't it the right thing to do?
You post more than any other person on Imzy. If you don't want people to know things about you, don't be such a visible person and don't post that information online for others to see. It's not obsession or derangement to remember tidbits of information people willingly provide. Apparently I didn't even get it right! So much for that obsession, though, right?
I suggest in the future reading about topics before forming beliefs about them. This should get you started: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/