Brother AJ
Smash Lord
Here's another topic that might stir the pot, and one I've brought up before on other boards.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788 – 1860)
Unfortunately for those that are part of the animal rights movement, or animal protectionist movement (for all you utilitarians out there), their particular ideologies are still very much within the ridicule stage. Perhaps this is partly because the most mainstream and well known animal advocacy groups like PETA, who are self proclaimed "media whores", favor using grandstanding and ridiculous stunts, frivolous proposals, and dressing up in chicken suits to get their point across. Maybe it has to do a lot with the fact that there are still a great number of people, that believe in the movement and what it stands for, who are afraid to fight against the atrocities out of fear of being ostracized or rejected by their friends and family.
Whatever the reason why this cause seemingly isn't taken seriously, the animal rights movement remains very much alive today, but there is obviously much work that needs to be done if it wants to be regarded as a true pursuit of social justice and/or struggle for liberation.
In many ways the animal rights movement is similar to justice movements past, in that it seeks to expand upon who we are to consider to be a part of the moral community. Throughout history, many irrelevant characteristics, such as what skin color or reproductive organ you possessed, were used to justify dissimilar treatment and, overall, exclude you from the moral community, but, eventually, this was recognized as injustice and discrimination. Today, it is wondered by many if discrimination based upon what species membership you hold will ever be shown to be a comparable matter of injustice. Is it really only humans who deserve our moral considerations? Does merely having human DNA make you worthy of protection?
There are obviously differences too. One is that, unlike previous movements concerning human rights, the "oppressed" in question are, for the most part, completely hidden from our view. Most of us do not see what exactly happens to the animals at factory farms, slaughterhouses, fur farms, laboratories, etc. around the world, day in and day out, as they are often private, distant, and secure facilities. Out of sight, out of mind as they say. The animals we DO interact with, namely those who are known as "pets", are often said to be deserving of our respect and protection. This has created quite the cognitive dissonance in my view, as we grasp at straws for reasons why dogs and cats should be regarded "higher" than chickens and pigs.
The most stark difference of all in this movement is that animals, that is, nonhuman animals, are a source of food. Eating animals is deeply imbedded within our culture and is practiced all over the world. Tied intrinsically to the belief that animals should be eaten by humans is the mantra that to do so is natural, normal, and necessary. But it isn't necessary, and whether or not something is "normal" or "natural" doesn't necessarily mean that it is moral. Your average human understands at some basic level that we shouldn't kill and harm others unnecessarily, we are not, after all, the sort of people who would want to support such things, but we are seemingly unable to make this connection to what is served on our plates.
These differences are daunting, but they do not make the situation hopeless. This is not a pointless cause. Abolishing the institution of slavery within America was once thought to be an impossible task as well. We can never know what the future may hold.
So what exactly does the animals rights movement ask for? Well, many things, but I think it mostly contends that the like interests of both humans and other animals (e.g. an interest in not suffering and continuing to live) should be treated similarly without prejudice towards species membership. It's not about giving a dog the right to vote, nor the right to drive, but the right to be protected and regarded respectfully. In my view, this is an issue that has gone without recognition or any sort of extensive discussion for far too long now. It affects far too many lives to be ignored any longer. Currently, 58 billion animals are killed worldwide every year for food and this does not include fish and other sea-life. Surely this number should be startling to us and indicate that something is amiss. That something needs to be done.
So, do you believe that the animal rights and protectionist movement deserves to be treated seriously as an important social justice issue? The answer is obvious to me, but how about you?
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788 – 1860)
Unfortunately for those that are part of the animal rights movement, or animal protectionist movement (for all you utilitarians out there), their particular ideologies are still very much within the ridicule stage. Perhaps this is partly because the most mainstream and well known animal advocacy groups like PETA, who are self proclaimed "media whores", favor using grandstanding and ridiculous stunts, frivolous proposals, and dressing up in chicken suits to get their point across. Maybe it has to do a lot with the fact that there are still a great number of people, that believe in the movement and what it stands for, who are afraid to fight against the atrocities out of fear of being ostracized or rejected by their friends and family.
Whatever the reason why this cause seemingly isn't taken seriously, the animal rights movement remains very much alive today, but there is obviously much work that needs to be done if it wants to be regarded as a true pursuit of social justice and/or struggle for liberation.
In many ways the animal rights movement is similar to justice movements past, in that it seeks to expand upon who we are to consider to be a part of the moral community. Throughout history, many irrelevant characteristics, such as what skin color or reproductive organ you possessed, were used to justify dissimilar treatment and, overall, exclude you from the moral community, but, eventually, this was recognized as injustice and discrimination. Today, it is wondered by many if discrimination based upon what species membership you hold will ever be shown to be a comparable matter of injustice. Is it really only humans who deserve our moral considerations? Does merely having human DNA make you worthy of protection?
There are obviously differences too. One is that, unlike previous movements concerning human rights, the "oppressed" in question are, for the most part, completely hidden from our view. Most of us do not see what exactly happens to the animals at factory farms, slaughterhouses, fur farms, laboratories, etc. around the world, day in and day out, as they are often private, distant, and secure facilities. Out of sight, out of mind as they say. The animals we DO interact with, namely those who are known as "pets", are often said to be deserving of our respect and protection. This has created quite the cognitive dissonance in my view, as we grasp at straws for reasons why dogs and cats should be regarded "higher" than chickens and pigs.
The most stark difference of all in this movement is that animals, that is, nonhuman animals, are a source of food. Eating animals is deeply imbedded within our culture and is practiced all over the world. Tied intrinsically to the belief that animals should be eaten by humans is the mantra that to do so is natural, normal, and necessary. But it isn't necessary, and whether or not something is "normal" or "natural" doesn't necessarily mean that it is moral. Your average human understands at some basic level that we shouldn't kill and harm others unnecessarily, we are not, after all, the sort of people who would want to support such things, but we are seemingly unable to make this connection to what is served on our plates.
These differences are daunting, but they do not make the situation hopeless. This is not a pointless cause. Abolishing the institution of slavery within America was once thought to be an impossible task as well. We can never know what the future may hold.
So what exactly does the animals rights movement ask for? Well, many things, but I think it mostly contends that the like interests of both humans and other animals (e.g. an interest in not suffering and continuing to live) should be treated similarly without prejudice towards species membership. It's not about giving a dog the right to vote, nor the right to drive, but the right to be protected and regarded respectfully. In my view, this is an issue that has gone without recognition or any sort of extensive discussion for far too long now. It affects far too many lives to be ignored any longer. Currently, 58 billion animals are killed worldwide every year for food and this does not include fish and other sea-life. Surely this number should be startling to us and indicate that something is amiss. That something needs to be done.
So, do you believe that the animal rights and protectionist movement deserves to be treated seriously as an important social justice issue? The answer is obvious to me, but how about you?
Last edited by a moderator: