Manapa wrote: baratgab wrote:
These topics are subject to much prejudice and delusion in the current, speciesist
so what is the difference between a carrot and a chicken to a non-speciesist? who decided one species had more worth than the other species here? a living being is a living being! no-one is no more or less nutrition for another being, than they are for others.
The difference is that what we call "chicken" is a sentient being, quite similar to us, while the carrot is not a sentient being; according to our scientific knowledge, and even according to the Buddhist doctrine.
To summarize, there can be no justification for any discrimination that is based solely on the fact that a sentient being belongs to a different species. Morally speaking, if one is prepared to take the life and/or eat the flesh of a chicken, one should also be prepared to take the life and/or eat the flesh of a ("deficient") human being (of similar mental capabilities). Elaboration:
The generally accepted moral principle of equality among humans doesn't rely on any factual actuality. Humans have wildly different mental and physical capabilities, different levels of moral integrity, different habit patterns – no matter what test we choose, it is simply not true that humans are equal. The actual base of the moral principle of equality among humans is the equal consideration of interests. That is, equality is a prescription for equally respectful treatment, which is based on the individual beings' individual needs and interests. This makes races, genders, sexual orientations, religions, IQ scores and other actual differences morally irrelevant, and since they are morally irrelevant, basing different degrees of moral consideration solely on them constitutes unjustifiable discrimination.
But since equality is based on the interests of the individual beings, without any regard to the actual equality of any capabilities or characteristics, this also makes the species barrier morally irrelevant
. This is a direct, irresistible implication. There can be no more justification for discriminating solely on the basis of species than discriminating solely on the basis of skin-color, gender, ethnic group, intelligence or even hair-color – every one of these characteristics is arbitrarily picked and morally irrelevant. This means, among other things, that no matter how commonplace the practice of confining and slaughtering non-human sentient beings to satisfy our morbid food-preference, this simply cannot be justified morally, and can only be seen as a severe breach on our moral integrity; as a form of unjustifiable discrimination, called speciesism
.A more detailed essay on this issue:All Animals Are Equal, from Peter Singer
If you feel any urge to debate, feel free to write to Peter Singer, Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, at firstname.lastname@example.org
. I'm not interested in debates; I'm more interested in leaving behind the whole "human" "civilization".
"Just as in the great ocean there is but one taste — the taste of salt — so in this Doctrine and Discipline there is but one taste — the taste of freedom"