Further Animal Liberation

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Philosophy Now
Posts: 1204
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am

Further Animal Liberation

Post by Philosophy Now »

John Tamilio III augments the arguments of Peter Singer.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/142/Further_Animal_Liberation
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Further Animal Liberation

Post by owl of Minerva »

As we live in an era where identity is front and center it could also be a time to consider animal liberation. The reasons could be pragmatic, ethical, and spiritual. A pragmatic reason for not eating animal flesh, especially beef and pork, is that they may be responsible for plaque and memory loss. An ethical reason could be not harming anything that has sensation and consequently suffers pain. A spiritual reason would be freeing up of the physical and psychic energies for spiritual evolution. It may not be necessary to refer to animals as persons or to compare the helplessness of a baby to them, as the baby has a future potential an animal does not have. If people are in a frozen tundra and their only choice is meat for survival then the survival of the human; the more evolved species, could be considered first; everything is relative. In prior eras the concept of the soul may have saved some humans if their physical or psychic selves were flawed. Flaws would not determine who they were in essence or limit their future self in its potential. In some cultures animals are perceived as having souls and consequently they are dealt with ethically.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Further Animal Liberation

Post by Immanuel Can »

owl of Minerva wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 5:34 pm ...it could also be a time to consider animal liberation...
Unless we humans are in a unique, caretaker category above "animals," then we have no duty to do this at all.

I surmise nobody's going to be asking the foxes or the owls, far less the fish and paramecia, to "liberate" humans or other animals. And if humans are just "animals," then there are no more rules for us than there are for them. :wink:

But how do you "liberate" an animal, when an animal has no ability even to grasp what is being done, or to act responsibly upon that "liberation"? :shock: In India, they "liberated" their cows long ago; and how has that worked out for them?
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Further Animal Liberation

Post by owl of Minerva »

"Unless we humans are in a unique, caretaker category above "animals," then we have no duty to do this at all."
..................................................................................................................................

'This' meaning liberate animals from unnecessary cruelty. You may not be familiar with the use of animals for testing cosmetics which still may be done as some cosmetic companies advertise their products as 'not tested on animals.' You may be unfamiliar with factory farming in which animals are confined in overcrowded conditions or where they are overfed before slaughter to increase their poundage or of the many other abuses. Whether or not we have a duty to liberate them from unnecessary cruelty does not mean that there is not an impact on our humanity from said cruelty. You may consider that it does not degrade it in any way; not everyone might agree. The purpose of the article' 'Further Animal Liberation' was to bring up the topic for discussion. You have stated your opinion and you are entitled to it.
Ansiktsburk
Posts: 447
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 12:03 pm
Location: Central Scandinavia

Re: Further Animal Liberation

Post by Ansiktsburk »

Meat is yummy. No denying that. And the take they had in the article, like that ok we can eat them but we shouldnt be cruel to them pretty much sums up my view on this. What is going on is that we are much more able than other bigger animals(mosquitos and flies rather rules us), the guys that came to america before columbus wiped out a heck of a lot of species, and thos coming to Australia before Cook made mayhem with the fauna there too.

However, we are also clever enough to analyze the situation. Producing meat in surroundings not exceedingly brutal do find customers even if more expensive. A lot of guys don’t eat meat at all, because of felt companionship with cows and pigs, or worried about CO2. All in all, it will be a melting pot of everything from hamburger splurgers to carrot eaters. And well, things will become what they become. Good thing that some guys are rather loud in defending animals. We aint too pretty handling our two and four legged cousins. And i dont eat red meat like 5 times/week as before. But I will still enjoy a nice Caeur de filet Provençale from time to time. And when I do I put som extra Scandinavian crowns to get a cow that wasn’t too brutalized.but, they are yummy!
Post Reply