Non-Human Animals: Crash Course Philosophy

BernardJOrtcutt · 11時間前

I'd like to take a moment to remind everyone of our first commenting rule:

Read the post before you reply.

Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This sub is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed.

I am a bot. Please do not reply to this message, asit will go unread. Instead, contact the moderators with questions or comments.

necius · 21時間前

This comment is largely repeating ideas covered in the video, but I think it bears repeating.

A lot of people seem to be troubled with the inclusion of speciesism in the realm of other -isms (like racism, sexism, ableism), but it's based on a simple principle that most people agree with:

Each individual should be treated according to their own characteristics, not the characteristics of any (often arbitrary) group to which they belong.

Some people argue that racism is wrong because there's no difference in capacities between races (which the science suggests is true). But even if that weren't the case and (for example) Caucasians had an average of 10 IQ points less than Asians, that still wouldn't be a justification for treating an individual Caucasian as less intelligent than an individual Asian because that individual Caucasian may be as intelligent, or more intelligent than the individual Asian (not to mention the problems of using intelligence as a barometer for worth, but that's a topic for another discussion).

This is, in modern times, not controversial. Why then is it controversial to say that each individual animal should be treated according to their own characteristics and not the characteristics of the group to which they belong? And, perhaps more importantly, why is similarity to humans (in both biologic and cognitive capabilities) so often considered the barometer for the value of a species?

ingenjor · 19時間前

One thing he didn't address is, where to draw the line? Sure, we can give up eating pork. We can give up eating fish. We can stop cosmetic testing on rabbits. By the same line of thought, should we not also stop trapping mice in our houses, stop swatting mosquitos, avoid killing spiders, avoid accidentally stepping on ants. At what point does a lifeform's ability to feel pain outweigh the want to consume it or the desire to get rid of it?

scmoua666 · 11時間前

I was raised on a small farm, where we ate pigs, chickens and cows we raised, named, fed and cared for. This taught me early on that there should be no difference between eating a dog and eating a cow, as they are both very intelligent and full of emotions we'd associate with humans. We had a dog (which we did not ate), but I always disliked the hypocrisy of people being revolted by kitten deaths and being totally fine eating a chicken which had been through far worse treatment.

My brother then turned vegetarian (still is), and I simply embraced the notion that my eating choices come with the slaughtering and suffering of many animals. I'm actually on a keto diet, which recommends no carbs (almost only meat, eggs and greens).

I could go vegetarian, I think it would be more aligned with my beliefs (that suffering should be minimized). But I'm just there, telling that to myself, eating meat, and waiting for lab-grown meat.

IndependentNews · 14時間前

Great post, I appreciate this, we really need to think through this, it's important.

BernardJOrtcutt · 23時間前

I'd like to take a moment to remind everyone of our first commenting rule:

Read the post before you reply.

Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This sub is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed.

keejaycaterpillar · 1日前

It excludes one factor that I admit influences me. The attraction factor. I find cats much more attractive than pigs. I find dogs much more fun than chickens. Also living with an animal gives it a more human like mental position in my minds hierarchy. Eating a pet becomes like eating a sibling.

Numella · 13時間前

Love the guy but the lack of facts or simple statistics gives more credit to less credible statements and vise versa

AlbinoMooseCat · 11時間前

One thing that wasn't considered here - cats, dogs and lions are carnivores. There's a reason we feel more repulsed by the idea of eating them, because it poses a greater risk to our health.

antesdelunes · 8時間前

I think one failure of this video is its oversimplification in its approach towards animal production and consumption which ends up prone to the the usage of falacious argumentations: it lacks the principle of charity and ends up creating a strawman - mixed-up wide appeals to emotion - when it characterizes the entirety of poultry production, for example, as handled in its most reprehensible way - by keeping birds in small cages, cutting their beaks, etc.

But what if the discussion was framed on the basis of the production of free range chicken for example? Yes, the animals killed at the end of their production cycles, but to argue that they live cruel and painful existences would be untrue. Even the death of a chick can be "humane": instantaneous, stress and pain free; so, once again, depending on how we frame it the discussion would be entirely different.

The video argues on the lack of coherence in wanting to eat certain species of animals and not others and basically decries "specieism". There are a whole range of beliefs that justify this practice (which you might agree or not with but are valid nonetheless): You could be an animist and believe that certain desireable (or unwanted) traits are transfered from the animal to you; your religion can specify that certain animals are "dirty" and some are not; your religion requires the slaughter and consumption of certain animals (which has to do with animism, like catholics eating fish on Easter friday).

On a more practical level it makes more sense energy-wise to consume herbivore animals, like lamb or poultry, than a carnivore animal like a cat, whiere you add yet another step into the foodchain. Plus, the consumption of meat from carnivores present much higher health hazards for humans.

Redditosaurus_Rex · 1日前

First off, philosophy shouldn't concern itself with objectives (except for objective truth) and it's apparent that this video inclines itself to a singular viewpoint.

Secondly, the arguments proposed against animals could be extended to eating plants and their potential offspring if you assume plants suffer too. I realize the idea of a plant suffering seems immediately silly, but it should be relevant to the discussion and I doubt it can be completely disproven considering that suffering is merely a systemic response to negative conditions. Plants do bend toward the light, so they do have survival "instincts" and that freshly cut grass smell is a chemical first aid response.

Thirdly, the Speciesist argument is thrown out unfairly. The argument is that our species is allowed to do what we'd like to other species because we arrived at the top of the food chain through our evolutionary development. The narrator then states that we'd believe differently if we weren't in the ruling species, but this doesn't negate the logic of the argument (in fact, it's kind of the point of the argument). He then goes on to racism, which occurs within one species, to further this point. Again, the logic doesn't follow. Later in the video he doesn't seem to get the hypocrisy of stating that philosphers would like congruence in their beliefs.

Lastly, the narrator tacitly states that we can survive without eating meat, but doesn't address the long-term effects this might bring. Certainly meat has been a common aspect of the human diet for a long time and changing that diet across the whole species hasn't been done before, so to say it is without consequence is to ignore the point totally.

I get that it's not a popular opinion to be pro-meat-eating when it's viewed as the strong brutalizing the weak, but if we approach the subject from the stance of sustenance and consider that other animals wouldn't hesitate to add us to their diets if given the opportunity, it can at least be discussed in a more objective framework.

Greenmushroom23 · 10時間前

This is my fav series on YouTube. I watch 3 eps every morning while I work out

KungFuSnafu · 1日前

Is this the CPG Grey guy?

Mitouson007 · 1日前

I have to admit from the get go. I typically don't think of my actions in a philosophical way. I find that when I do there are far to many obsurdities to count. What I mean is this; in the context of the video, I often don't think about my usage of animals or my complacency in a system that does. But if I weighed all my decisions around a philosophy of "cause no harm" I would swiftly go insane. In my estimation no choice, no matter how small or benign, is without consequences. Every choice, even the choice to do nothing carries with it untold ramifications. I am strongly for not causing suffering, still suffering is part of life. Without the copacity to feel pain we would never be able to feel the hurt we inflict.

There is no way to insulate against all suffering. To try to accomplish that would be to try and stay 20 forever simply because it was when you felt the best.

Koloradio · 10時間前

It's worth remembering that no domestic species is natural. Most cattle are descended from the now extinct aurochs, pigs were domesticated from wild boars, dogs from wolves. While dogs may not live the free and wild life of the wolf, they're doing much better in evolutionary terms (diversity, population size, reproduction). Domestication is, essentially, a wild species losing its 'freedom' in exchange for a supply of food, protection from predators, and guaranteed reproduction (well, for the studs anyway). I bring this up because it touches on a little considered consequence of treating humans and non-human animal's equivalently: if everyone in the world agreed that it was wrong to eat meat, domestic animals would likely die out, or worse, be released to wreak havoc on natural landscapes.

There's still an argument to made for reducing animal suffering, ending factory farms/feedlots, etc. but it's worth thinking about the fact that the violation of an individual animal's interests (say, not being eaten) was the reason that species came about, the reason domestic animals have been so successful, and is necessary for the continuation of the species.

MacAdler · 17時間前

What about the ability, or potentiality, to use language? Whenever I think about this type of differences between humans and non-human animals, I always end up with language as the main difference, and what put us in a different category. The ability to create and use language is what serves as a Moral excuse.

Because these other animals are unable to communicate effectively using a complex, organized, and discernible form of communication, they are not to be hold under the same considerations that humans are. And yes, there are humans that speak other languages, and there are some that can't even speak; but they are all humans.

This is the reason why I wouldn't eat my cat or dog. After living together with a cat or a dog, you a way of communication that you don't have with the pig that became bacon, or the cow that became your burger.

Now, should we mistreat animals? No, I don't think so.

Should we continue to eat them? I think that in order for our specie to survive on the long term here on Earth, and to be able to successfully get out of Earth and colonize the system, we're going to have to change the way we produce food. Not so much because of the moral dilemma that it presents, but because it is an unsustainable situation for us as a whole.

abelkiller5 · 13時間前

We could create rabbit sanctuaries to maximize joy.

Justin_Scheibel · 10時間前

I am glad that this conversation is happening because it demonstrates that the pervasive social ignorance of it is unravelling due to the persistent efforts of animal rights activists, environmentalists and deep ecologists, but it quite frankly infuriates me to read the mostly uninformed views of individuals against and for animal rights, using dated, fragile arguments and a severe deficit of research in animal cognition and aptitudes due to underfunding and inherent bias in researchers. I feel like all I can do is wait for the genocide of the planet to end one way or another and just stand by my ethics to protect other species as valuable intrinsically and not extrinsically while surpressing anthropocentricst ideology. I would like to respond critically to views presented here, but it is deeply depressing, so I will just stick to stating my position so that there is no consensus.

A bit of a manifesto:

I hold that the ecosystem is more intrinsically valuable than humanity is in itself.

I hold that nonhuman animals are not justifiable as mere means nor is a lopsided interaction with nonhumans in which humans obtain more well-being than the nonhuman permissible

I hold that most human interactions are not bidirectional with the human being adopting communication modes of the nonhuman in order to balance dialogue; rather most interactions are self-flatteringly unidirection with the imposition of human communication modes. This means that some pet relations are indeed morally permissible insofar as interaction is balanced and behavior not stifled by control, but many are immoral.

I hold that, in lieu of nonhuman animals deserving not only dignity and well-being in equal measure to their actual capacities (as demonstrated by cognitive ethology and neuroscience and not merely speculated as convenient by detractors), but the very right to live and actualize their cognitive modes and behaviors, to self-actualize their capacities and not merely be controlled with insideous conditioning that inhibits cognitive growth, that our treatment of other species is the gravest violation of morality in human history, persistent for several millenia, and that nothing we have done to each other even compares.

I hold that all species deserve this cognitive liberty and that classical and operant conditioning modes along with selective breeding shape the cognitive makeup and tendencies of individuals to serve purely human ends, and that much cognitive/psychological diversity in species is destroyed this way. It is equivalent to selectively breeding human slaves for docility, obedience and lack of stochastic behaviors that lead to cognitive development. It therefore should be illegal and that all human-nonhuman interactions should be treated as evolving dialogue with different rhetorical moves and communicative gestures and that human beings should not be permitted to limit, restrict or diminish the communicative abilities of nonhumans. This include such things as removing dog's vocal cords or severe punitive measures for psychologically healthy horse behaviors that are traditionally seen as "vices".

All individual members of a species are valuable in themselves as they are, indeed, individuals and not merely extensions of a kind or class that can be generalized. All nonhuman animals are persons with rich conscious lives and self-interests, and should be treated as such informally and in formal law.

Individual members of a species exercise choice and decision, and while this is not in the same modes as human beings, the sponteneity and stochasticisty of action constitutes free will in a salient moral sense. It is thus that we must extend to nonhumans protections from inhibiting their behaviors and inclinations so as to allow them freedom of choice and action. To this end as well, the idea of deliberative choice is not requisite for a salient moral weight of choice in individual members of a species.

I hold that zoophilic relaitions are morally permissible and that psychological disgust with this idea is completely irrational and does not constitute a valid ethics.

I hold that it is right that a human life is equal in value to that of a nonhuman such that if one is to choose between a human and nonhuman life to save, one may choose either without a failure of ethics.

I hold that the meat industry should be completely disassembled, and that human beings need to change their eating habits to be sustainable and ethical. The system is cruel and destructive, and not only does it horrifically mistreat its foodstock species it is also causing the endangerment of other species, such as the coyote, and other modes of species being such as the feral horse and anything that competes with cattle ranchers and factory farms for land usage. It is as evil as anything we do can be.

andreslucero · 8時間前

I think "might makes right" is justifiable by production potential. A human being is capable of producing, creating and innovating more than any animal could ever hope to and so, it would be inconvenient to limit their potential (slavery) or outright cutting it by eating them. Production also includes emotional production, since the chicken you ate has no emotional impact on your life and will never do so (unless you had him as a pet, then you probably wouldn't kill it for consumption) but a kitten would produce an emotional attachment that gives it a higher status in our hierarchy, even though emotional attachment can't translate into an economic sense.

In short, bloody cats tricking us to not eat them. Anyways, that's my five minute justification.

Joilol · 6時間前

But the difference is on the why we kill them. We frown upon much more on killing or harming for fun or because you are crazy, the other is doing it with a sensible reason: food, some economic gain...

MetaParser · 6時間前

The only problem is the abuses. Animals being eaten is part of the natural cycle, no problem with that... Some people says you can live without meat so you should... Sorry but I need a bit of meat at some point or I go crazy, it's just not the same thing (and meat is about 5% of my ingredients). Respecting animals is ok but overwriting reality because you get emotional over puppies, NOPE. Treating animals like human being is ridiculous, as are robot rights.

philosophy

New Subreddit Rules

Hover or Tap Each Rule for Full Details

Posting Rules

Posts must put forth a substantive philosophical thesis and make a serious and sustained attempt to defend this thesis in English (with some exceptions, e.g. news about the profession, interviews with philosophers, and so on). Questions belong in /r/askphilosophy.

Post titles (a) cannot be questions, (b) must describe the philosophical content contained therein, and (c) should make use of transparent links whenever possible (no link-shorteners).

The following types of posts require moderator approval before they may be posted: links to products, services, fundraisers, surveys, other areas of reddit, AMAs and meta-posts. Links which require one to create an account, e.g. Academia.edu, are not allowed.

Discussion of suicide is only allowed in the abstract here. If you or a friend is feeling suicidal please visit /r/suicidewatch.

Commenting Rules

Read the Post Before You Reply

Argue your Position

Be Respectful

Wiki

Philosophy AMAs

Reading Group

Weekly Discussion

調停者