An online space for the vegans of Lemmy.
Rules and miscellaneous:
If you are more interested in the point made at ~13:00
Imagine if you have a 50-50 chance of being born as ... human ..or as a pig
this is basically John Rawls original position, or veil of ignorance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position
I think it is a valuable thought experiment for all -isms
Y'know I wonder if Rawl's original position would technically apply here. Part of the veil of ignorance requires you to be sentient and intelligent enough to understand the consequences either way. I think that the 1st imperative might apply better in this case.
Plus people can't really imagine what it's like to be a pig. π·
Obviously everyone is limited by the scope of understanding they have right now, I could not decide what is best for everyone in every situation and the view of the world changes over time in society.
Rawls did not consider many issues but I think that makes it easier: It is not you or me in our current situation who decides, you and me are already human so we have to decide before we are anybody and at that point we have none of those limits. If at this point you don't want to experience suffering or injustice what prevents the you you are now to not inflict suffering and injustice on others?
Yes, you could become one with lower intelligence so maybe you decide to give them the best possibilities they can have in live. With even distribution you are 10 times more likely to end in cage an be killed than to end up as any human, it takes little imagination to see that its not desirable.
Martha Nussbaum (Justice for animals - absolute recommended read) has some good points on the shortcomings of the veil of ignorance, not invalidating but refining. She takes it and extends the thought of freedom and independence with fairness. A fairness that is not required by Rawls because in his scenario everyone has the same abilities.
Not to disagree with the usage of Kant, it is obviously valid. I personally lean more towards Kohlbergs theory of moral because I think it provides more depth, nuance. For the point made in the video I think Rawls is a good fit.
Fantastic comment! Thanks for the names. I really appreciate you writing this.
+1 for philosophy buffness
I mean the main issue, even regardless of the valid points you're making, is that if people don't even care about their fellow man then hoping for animal equality is a bit of a crapshoot. I really hope that we develop safe alternatives that are appealing to the masses soon.
The alternatives that are available (ie, pulses, nuts, seeds, roots, tubers, grains, vegetables, bark, fruit, buds, flowers, minerals, fungi, bacteria cultures, products of fermentation, even fuckin lichen, moss and ferns if you want) are not "unappealing" due to any intrinsic qualities they possess or do not possess. People have been manipulated into being habituated to a cruel, toxic, and destructive diet. Once a human is habituated to a diet, they resist change. Giving them more "appealing" products won't change that, unless capital decides it is better for the masses to be habituated to a new set of products.
Is it really hidden? We don't prosecute people for killing any animal except for other humans, or animals that humans have deemed important. Seems pretty out in the open to me, and widely accepted too (as it should be)
There have always been people like you in history that declared the circumstances as something "that should be"
Here are the prequels of your statement:
We donβt prosecute people for killing any slaves (as it should be)
We donβt prosecute people for beating their wives (as it should be)
We donβt prosecute people for racism (as it should be)
I think it's dependent on where you live, what animal, the reason and the method.
Where I live we have pretty tight animal cruelty laws and hunting laws. Same goes for cattle.
So we do prosecute people for killing animals.
But I'm guessing we're the exception and not the rule.
We prosecute people for killing certain animals that we deem important. That's still speciesism, we don't ask other animals which ones they think should be spared.
Yeah, but we seem to do the same with people.
It's a weird feeling being allies with countries that enforce death penalty when your own country abolished such things long ago, for example. Same with encouraging lethal force for trespassing. Or just generally having an infrastructure heavily based on weapons manufacturing and sales, as well as various military shenanigans perpetrated through-out the world.
But alas, here we are. Humanity hasen't evolved too much regarding it's own moral compass it would seem.
Maybe we're just a pretty shit species overall.