Imzy
  • Discover communities
  • Log In
  • Sign up
  • Home
  • Discover communities
  • Log In
  • Sign up
  • About
  • Learn More
  • Contact
  • Community Policy
  • FAQ
  • Sitemap
  • Terms
  • Privacy Policy
  • Available on the App Store
  • Available on Google Play
Copyright © 2017 Saurus, Inc. All rights reserved.
reads

reads

Long reads, short reads, interesting articles that aren't straight up news or clickbait.

9848 members
Posted byAnonPoliceHunterin/reads-Mar 25 at 7:46 PM

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
Comments8
  • Data_7Mar 25 at 8:35 PM

    When examining animals’ cognitive abilities, we find that we readily move the goalposts of what constitutes this perceived exceptionalism, when we find that fish can use and invent tools, octopuses can solve puzzles, infant pigs can use mirrors, prairie dogs communicate with verbal symbols, dolphins can use language to coordinate on a problem, chimpanzees have metacognition and can deceive, jays have episodic memories, elephants grieve, chickens pass down cultural knowledge, rats engage in acts of altruism, crows and dogs play, nonhuman animals can have psychopathologies and are capable of depression, ad infinitum.

    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.

    • AnonPoliceHunterMar 25 at 8:44 PM

      It truly is amazing to see the lengths that some people will go to to project Human values onto animals.

      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.

      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.

      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.

      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.

      Good thing no one claimed they were human. You aren't addressing the arguments in good faith.

      • Data_7Mar 25 at 8:58 PM

        What do you mean by "Human values"?

        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.

        Well, you can ignore the arguments being made.

        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.

        There are humans less intelligent than these animals

        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.

        Clearly it's not intelligence or the capacity you are describing that allows us to kill one but not the other.

        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.

        Good thing no one claimed they were human.

        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'.

        It truly is amazing to see the lengths that some people will go to justify their abuse of animals. ... You aren't addressing the arguments in good faith.

        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.

      • AnonPoliceHunterMar 25 at 9:12 PM

        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.

        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?

        The argument being made is that because animals participate in activities also observed in Humans that we are equals.

        Equals in what regard? Did you even read the earlier paragraphs?

        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.

        You are misrepresenting the author and ignoring the core arguments.

        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.

        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.

        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.

        I think you are so unfamiliar with the topic that you are having trouble understanding it, to be honest.

        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'.

        You misunderstand. Read again:

        Antispeciesism does not require that we treat all organisms equally, rather, it simply requires that we consider interests of equal strength to an equal extent, regardless of the species membership of those involved. For example, antispeciesism does not require that we give gorillas the right to vote — gorillas have neither the capability to use, nor an interest in, such a right. Antispeciesism does require us to consider gorillas’ interests in life, social relationships, and freedom from physical and psychological suffering, and to avoid frustrating these interests as far as is practical and possible.

        .

        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.

        Farming animals is animal abuse.

      • Data_7Mar 25 at 9:40 PM

        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?

        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.

        Equals in what regard? Did you even read the earlier paragraphs?

        Yes. The author claims that we should regard ourselves as animals among animals rather than people above animals.

        You are misrepresenting the author and ignoring the core arguments.

        Just saying this over and over again doesn't make it true.

        How can someone that apparently studies anthropology be so misinformed?

        I'm not an anthropologist and never claimed to be, so I don't know where you got that from.

        There are references on the site! Read them.

        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.

        Your assertion that animals are, "basically already dead" is hysterical.

        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.

        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.

        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.

        I think you are so unfamiliar with the topic that you are having trouble understanding it, to be honest.

        What topic is that? Psychology, biology, neurology, animal rights...?

        You misunderstand ...

        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.

        Farming animals is animal abuse.

        I never advocated for farming, not in my original post or my reply.

      • AnonPoliceHunterMar 25 at 10:04 PM

        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.

        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. The author claims that we should regard ourselves as animals among animals rather than people above animals.

        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.

        Just saying this over and over again doesn't make it true.

        Sure, but I'm letting you know how nonsensical you sound.

        I'm not an anthropologist and never claimed to be, so I don't know where you got that from.

        Apparently I don't remember exactly what you are studying, sorry.

        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.

        Where does cognitive effort fit into the argument?

        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.

        You misunderstand. Read again:

        Some particularly common refrains used to justify denying nonhuman animals rights are that they are not intelligent, they cannot talk, or they cannot reason about morality or perform contractual obligations. Forget for a moment that these assertions are broadly incorrect and there are nonhumans who surpass young human children in reasoning ability and adults in other cognitive feats, and others who use language and make moral decisions. Instead, imagine if these criteria were applied to humans: we would rightly be outraged at the proposal that some humans should receive substantially less moral consideration than others simply for being less intelligent, or less articulate, or because they are too young or mentally disabled to behave morally, or are otherwise incapable of entering contracts or bearing responsibilities. These traits do not determine whether we care about other humans’ well-being. So not only do these criteria fail to create a meaningful distinction between humans and other animals, but we already consider them morally irrelevant anyways.

        This is called the argument from marginal cases.

        What topic is that? Psychology, biology, neurology, animal rights...?

        Speciesism. Animal rights. Moral philosophy.

        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.

        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?

        I never advocated for farming, not in my original post or my reply.

        Glad to hear you've become vegan.

      • Data_7Mar 25 at 10:22 PM

        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.

      • AnonPoliceHunterMar 25 at 10:29 PMΔ

        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/

reads

reads

Long reads, short reads, interesting articles that aren't straight up news or clickbait.

9848 members
  • About
  • Sitemap
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Copyright © 2017 Saurus, Inc. All rights reserved.