Speciesism?

[divegirl]

'Speciesism' is the idea that being human is a good enough reason for human animals to have greater moral rights than non-human animals. ...a prejudice or bias in favour of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species.

Having read with interest the post on killing 'rescue' dogs... and other non human animals I presume? Would you watch this documentary?

[naomi24]

This appears to be the source of your opening sentence, quoted verbatim.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/rights/speciesism.shtml

Further on, the article poses the question: //A child and a dog are trapped in a fire. You can only save one of them. Which will you save?//

I’d be devasted to let the dog die, but I would save the child. No contest. No, I won’t be watching your documentary.

[pixie374]

I think evolution alone explains why we would tend to "favour" our own species. I would also be devastated to let a dog die. Not because I believe a human life is necessarily more important... but it would affect so many more people...

[tamborine]

Until my animals contradict me on here I remain top dog ;)

[divegirl]

Thank you for the compliment but it is no way my documentary, just something I watched that was eye opening for me. It doesn't just cover non human animals but along with the likes of Cowspiracy who humans as a species use and abuse any species they deem to be below them.

Peace xx

[divegirl]

*how

Din't think any one would just thought I'd put it out there xx

[naomi24]

Cowspiracy? No, me neither ... so I looked it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowspiracy

[divegirl]

Ah, was just going to link it, thank you. Also controversial but I agree with it x

[hc4361]

I firmly believe that the world would be a better place had humans never come in to being.

However, we are here and we have done untold damage which we are now trying to rectify. We are the only species that can work collectively to save or wipe out another species worldwide, as far as I know. (Correct me if I'm wrong - I'd be very interested to hear of a species that has been eradicated by another animal species).

We are not the only species to abuse another, though. I have watched cats torment mice without killing them, seemingly just for fun.
We have all seen the David Attenborough film that shows killer whales 'playing' with seals before killing them. There may be a valid reason for them doing that but we can't know for sure.
I've watched cats drive dogs batty safe in the knowledge that dogs can't reach them.

'Birds of a feather flock together' and so do animals. Are we the only species that flocks not just with other people, but choose which groups and subsections of other people to flock with?

[divegirl]

We are however the only species with the intelligence [allegedly] to be able to put right what is wrong.
We don't need to use and abuse other species because we should no better.
We don't need to ride donkeys, we invented the car.
We don't need to eat meat, we discovered plant based is better for both us and the environment.
We don't need to hunt... we invented video games....

Yet most still choose to use and abuse those who share this planet with us x

[hc4361]

I still use lard, divegirl. Look what our use of palm oil is doing to the planet.

[divegirl]

''We are not the only species to abuse another, though. I have watched cats torment mice without killing them, seemingly just for fun.
We have all seen the David Attenborough film that shows killer whales 'playing' with seals before killing them. There may be a valid reason for them doing that but we can't know for sure.
I've watched cats drive dogs batty safe in the knowledge that dogs can't reach them. ''

Maybe they do do it for amusement and or bloodlust... but then they haven't evolved to watch Eastenders, play xbox or run for sport to redirect their needs. We have.

[divegirl]

Again, thanks for the compliment but it's not my palm oil.

Palm oil is, if ethically grown one of the most sustainable and 'green' oils on this planet. But don't let that get in the way of a good argument hey?

[divegirl]

sorry, mis-read a bit there, the message is still the same though. Most palm oil is now grown on sustainable plantations.
The majority of forest being cleared now is to grow soy for animal feed.

[naomi24]

Divegirl, which would you save from a fire? A child or a dog?

[hc4361]

A lot of palm oil is used for bio oil and energy, too. Maybe we should go back to the donkey and horse and cart.

[Old_Geezer]

Not in all likelihood. It makes zero sense not to favour your own species over less advanced ones. Otherwise we'd be forever in the dock for genocide of bacteria. Different species are assigned different rights. It can't rationally be otherwise. No need to make an ism out of it.

[divegirl]

''Divegirl, which would you save from a fire? A child or a dog? ''

I would say whomever was in the most need. I would not bypass the dog to save a relatively safe child.

You?

So many if's and but's? Bit like the vegan on an island with a chicken... hardly likely to happen thankfully.
What I do find immature and strange is for a person to base their whole moral and ethical compass on 'extreme made up theoretical circumstance' x

If I child and a pig were hung by a back leg [having being ethically and humanely stunned' about to have their throat slit... I may help the child first... depends whom is screaming loudest x

[Mamyalynne]

You dismiss the use of 'extreme made up theoretical circumstance' by others yet use one yourself to make a somewhat controversial point - interesting.

[divegirl]

ok... what is your reason for differentiating between species?

Why eat cow but not pig?

Why lamb but not dog?

Why salmon but not cat?

Why save a child but but not a puppy?

Too extreme?

[divegirl]

And I only used this as it is often a case used in argument against not eating animals.


''extreme made up theoretical circumstance''