Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Captain Obvious answers: because an animal is not a human being. It has no self-awareness. Value is not life itself. The bacteria are also alive, but we don't randomly kill them with billions.
Value – intelligence, self-awareness, abstract thinking, the ability to create (create new things). And the closer an animal is to reason, the less it is an animal, the greater its loss becomes.
It happened historically. The Old Testament, for example. Although in some countries (in India at least) killing a sacred animal is quite a serious crime
In short: because humans perceive their own species (Homo sapiens sapiens) how exceptional among all the living world.�
Some modern philosophers put forward the idea of ” speciefism — – a manifestation of xenophobia, chauvinism in relation to an external group of living beings. Peter Singer, a well-known theorist of veganism and speciefism, in his work “Animal Liberation” draws an analogy between this phenomenon and other gradually disappearing manifestations of xenophobia (racism, sexism). If back in the XVIII century it was absolutely difficult to imagine the rights of a full-fledged citizen of a developed European state, the institution of slavery flourished, now in the socio-political discourse, manifestations of prejudice against representatives of the Black race are strongly condemned and condemned. Simply put, while discrimination against blacks was previously the norm, it has now become unacceptable, and early discriminatory practices have been condemned, deemed unfounded, and unethical.�
Singer suggests that the treatment of animals should follow the same path as the treatment of previously discriminated groups. He proceeds from the principles of utilitarianism (maximizing universal happiness and, consequently, minimizing suffering) and sees no obstacles to applying the same principles to animals. The revision of fundamental biases against animals as qualitatively inferior beings (and these biases, according to Singer, are no more conditioned than racial or sexist ones) is a matter of time, the future outcome of the struggle for “animal liberation”.
It is considered natural to exploit unintelligent beings who are unable to verbally express their protest. But it was also considered natural that blacks should be nothing but slaves. Prejudice against animals is the result of a centuries-old habit of eating meat and wearing fur coats.
Because that's nature. All predators kill animals and humans are no exception, but if we do not kill the piggy, but let it go free, then the wolf will do it.. Killing a human being is dangerous for society. Another reason why we can't give animals human rights is that rights are followed by responsibilities that animals can't fulfill.
Because we associate ourselves with a person. When a person is killed in front of us, we realize how fragile our own life is, because we are the same person. When we see a person being killed, our fear of death increases for a while. With the exception of cases when our loved one is killed, then we experience bitterness, anger and many other bad feelings. When we kill an animal, we also experience fear, but the presence of information in the brain that animals are less important than humans allows us to quickly survive the fear. But, for example, a person perceives the killing of his pet more painfully than someone else's animal, because of attachment. And children generally experience killing animals more painfully than humans, because they love them more, and children don't yet have information in their brains about where animals are in the food chain.
Because even before the appearance of modern humans, our ancestors hunted animals. At least, since the time of erectus (pithecanthropus). The very appearance of any large brain was made possible by regular eating of meat, eggs, fish and seafood (later-even dairy). Today's opportunity to completely abandon animal products, including dairy products, appeared only thanks to agriculture, technologies for deep processing of plant raw materials and the synthesis of missing vitamins.�
Not to mention the fact that nature is designed in such a way that some creatures live by killing others. Or they kill others to prevent themselves from being killed. Or to protect the territory and feed base. A person had to kill not only for food and other nishtyaks, but also for self-defense. And where dangerous animal species have been preserved, we still have to do this. What would you do if mice or rats came to live and breed in your house, spoiling your possessions and infecting you with a dozen unpleasant diseases? Will you give them a lecture on the principles of utilitarianism?