Imagine being so full of snobbish “moral superiority” that you deem animal rights a more important and immediate matter over the many problems that affect humans that haven’t been solved yet.
Where do you read that I say “animal rights are a more important and immediate matter than the many problems that affect humans”? That sounds like a straw man.
But what you are doing here is a classic pattern of argumentation that is used time and again to prevent or reverse social progress. For example, this is how the abolition of USAID was justified. It was said that Americans had to be helped first before foreigners could be helped. From the MAGAs’ point of view, the decisive quality characteristic is not being human, but being American. Suffering for anyone who is not American is therefore legitimate. This othering is justified by the argument that one must first help one’s own kind, and that this is normal, natural even. And one’s own kind is then defined as Americans, rather than all humans, which would also be possible. The same thing happens in my country whenever it comes to humanitarian aid or refugees.
That’s why I’m going to say the same thing to you that I always say to these guys: Nothing in the world prevents us from addressing and criticizing all injustices at the same time.
Since you’re on Lemmy, it’s likely that you don’t agree with this reasoning above. But structurally, it’s exactly the same as what we do to animals, isn’t it? We tolerate avoidable suffering in other living beings because we only consider humans to be our own kind. But our own kind could also be living beings in general. But they are simply ‘the others’.
For vegans, it is simply not convincing to make this harsh distinction. At least not when it comes to something as fundamental as avoidable suffering. And the suffering is avoidable. We don’t have to cause it. So we could refrain from doing so. That’s the whole argument.
Nothing in the world prevents us from addressing and criticizing all injustices at the same time.
There are things that prevents us from addressing everything at the same time, the most important one being time itself, closely followed by resources available, mostly manpower and brainpower. Deciding on the best course isn’t done in a snap, it takes time to debate, time to research, time to convince, time that is not being spent on “everything else”. Sure, there can be synergies in some actions and laws, but to think that you can do one that is all-encompassing is delusional.
How important any one matter is more important “right now”, which I alluded to in my comment, also prevents addressing “everything at the same time”. Maybe the person cares about animal rights, but would much rather see time and effort being directed at something else right now, which they deem more important. “I can’t afford rent and the govt wants me to starve, why should I focus on animal rights right now?”
Good luck addressing all of the world’s injustices at the same time.
In fact, it is easier to criticize exploitation, domination, and suffering as a whole than to take the complicated detour of first restricting who is entitled to empathy and solidarity. So in a way, empathetic people make it easier for themselves. They are simply against injustice in general. And I don’t think that makes anything more complex or energy- and timeconsuming either. For the exact same reason that I have a problem with Nazis, I am also in favor of transgender people being allowed to live freely, of the means of production being socialized, and of the exploitation of animals ending: Because I find injustice and inequality wrong in general. I wonder more how people can manage this intellectual balancing act of cherry-picking here.
On the other hand, they are not alone in this. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, whom we both know today as pioneers of liberalism, made money from the slave trade. George Washington, who spoke of freedom and equality for all, owned slaves himself. Immanuel Kant, perhaps the most important philosopher of the Enlightenment, even justified slavery philosophically. Today, this seems hypocritical to us. But back then, it was not particularly unusual, because anyone who was not white was simply one of “the others” to whom none of this applied. The othering of all non-white people was simply part of the unquestioned hegemonic worldview of the time.
But sooner or later, the same thing will happen to animals as happened to non-white people. The othering of animals, which makes the cruelty to them socially legitimate, will no longer be accepted by anyone who is not completely cold-hearted. People of the future will look back on us with horror.
This reasoning reminds me of “effective altruism.” If you do a cost/benefit analysis, it makes much more sense to buy mosquito nets to combat malaria than to improve the lives of homeless people in industrialized countries. Proponents even say that it would be immoral to improve conditions here in the West because it means using resources in a much less effective way than could be possible. No wonder this way of thinking is so popular in Silicon Valley, as it gives people a good, even moral excuse not to have to deal with the problems here.
But I can reassure you: like almost every social problem, this one is linked to all sorts of others. A very obvious link between animal liberation and human problems are ecological and climatic issues, which affect all living beings on the planet, including humans. And without the exploitation of the Global South, meat consumption in Western societies would not be possible at all. So, those who help non-human animals also help humans.
Judging by your name, you are a Marxist like me. Then you must realize that wage earners have something in common with non-human animals in that they are exploited, dominated, and suffer at the hands of the ruling class. Of course, the function of workers and animals in the production process of capital differs qualitatively, and the role they each play in the struggle against the ruling class is also completely different. Unlike animals, wage workers can organize to defend themselves, plan strikes and demonstrations, and think about a liberated society. Above all, however, unlike animals, they can analyze the social conditions that make them exploited and dominated and derive concrete steps for organizing their own liberation. Non-human animals, on the other hand, can defend themselves against torture in isolated cases, but because they lack the aforementioned abilities, they can only be objects of liberation from social exploitation.
Anyone who wants to create a world without exploitation, domination, and socially produced suffering must include animals in this endeavor. Firstly, although in a qualitatively different way than wage workers, animals are also exploited in the capitalist production process, and despite all the differences that have developed historically and socially, they share with humans the ability to suffer as a result. Secondly, animal production today, at least in the capitalist centers, is objectively irrational, not least because of the social and ecological damage it causes.
I’m not morally obligated to help people or animals every moment of my life. I am morally obligated not to be the cause suffering I could easily prevent.
Not really, I’m complaining that vegans putting animal rights above human rights is a snob and “morally superior” act that they always do, not unlike religious preachers condemning prostitutes and drunkards for their sinful ways
Imagine being so full of snobbish “moral superiority” that you deem animal rights a more important and immediate matter over the many problems that affect humans that haven’t been solved yet.
Where do you read that I say “animal rights are a more important and immediate matter than the many problems that affect humans”? That sounds like a straw man.
But what you are doing here is a classic pattern of argumentation that is used time and again to prevent or reverse social progress. For example, this is how the abolition of USAID was justified. It was said that Americans had to be helped first before foreigners could be helped. From the MAGAs’ point of view, the decisive quality characteristic is not being human, but being American. Suffering for anyone who is not American is therefore legitimate. This othering is justified by the argument that one must first help one’s own kind, and that this is normal, natural even. And one’s own kind is then defined as Americans, rather than all humans, which would also be possible. The same thing happens in my country whenever it comes to humanitarian aid or refugees.
That’s why I’m going to say the same thing to you that I always say to these guys: Nothing in the world prevents us from addressing and criticizing all injustices at the same time.
Since you’re on Lemmy, it’s likely that you don’t agree with this reasoning above. But structurally, it’s exactly the same as what we do to animals, isn’t it? We tolerate avoidable suffering in other living beings because we only consider humans to be our own kind. But our own kind could also be living beings in general. But they are simply ‘the others’.
For vegans, it is simply not convincing to make this harsh distinction. At least not when it comes to something as fundamental as avoidable suffering. And the suffering is avoidable. We don’t have to cause it. So we could refrain from doing so. That’s the whole argument.
There are things that prevents us from addressing everything at the same time, the most important one being time itself, closely followed by resources available, mostly manpower and brainpower. Deciding on the best course isn’t done in a snap, it takes time to debate, time to research, time to convince, time that is not being spent on “everything else”. Sure, there can be synergies in some actions and laws, but to think that you can do one that is all-encompassing is delusional.
How important any one matter is more important “right now”, which I alluded to in my comment, also prevents addressing “everything at the same time”. Maybe the person cares about animal rights, but would much rather see time and effort being directed at something else right now, which they deem more important. “I can’t afford rent and the govt wants me to starve, why should I focus on animal rights right now?”
Good luck addressing all of the world’s injustices at the same time.
In fact, it is easier to criticize exploitation, domination, and suffering as a whole than to take the complicated detour of first restricting who is entitled to empathy and solidarity. So in a way, empathetic people make it easier for themselves. They are simply against injustice in general. And I don’t think that makes anything more complex or energy- and timeconsuming either. For the exact same reason that I have a problem with Nazis, I am also in favor of transgender people being allowed to live freely, of the means of production being socialized, and of the exploitation of animals ending: Because I find injustice and inequality wrong in general. I wonder more how people can manage this intellectual balancing act of cherry-picking here.
On the other hand, they are not alone in this. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, whom we both know today as pioneers of liberalism, made money from the slave trade. George Washington, who spoke of freedom and equality for all, owned slaves himself. Immanuel Kant, perhaps the most important philosopher of the Enlightenment, even justified slavery philosophically. Today, this seems hypocritical to us. But back then, it was not particularly unusual, because anyone who was not white was simply one of “the others” to whom none of this applied. The othering of all non-white people was simply part of the unquestioned hegemonic worldview of the time.
But sooner or later, the same thing will happen to animals as happened to non-white people. The othering of animals, which makes the cruelty to them socially legitimate, will no longer be accepted by anyone who is not completely cold-hearted. People of the future will look back on us with horror.
every minute spent on animal rights is a minute not spent helping people
This reasoning reminds me of “effective altruism.” If you do a cost/benefit analysis, it makes much more sense to buy mosquito nets to combat malaria than to improve the lives of homeless people in industrialized countries. Proponents even say that it would be immoral to improve conditions here in the West because it means using resources in a much less effective way than could be possible. No wonder this way of thinking is so popular in Silicon Valley, as it gives people a good, even moral excuse not to have to deal with the problems here.
But I can reassure you: like almost every social problem, this one is linked to all sorts of others. A very obvious link between animal liberation and human problems are ecological and climatic issues, which affect all living beings on the planet, including humans. And without the exploitation of the Global South, meat consumption in Western societies would not be possible at all. So, those who help non-human animals also help humans.
Judging by your name, you are a Marxist like me. Then you must realize that wage earners have something in common with non-human animals in that they are exploited, dominated, and suffer at the hands of the ruling class. Of course, the function of workers and animals in the production process of capital differs qualitatively, and the role they each play in the struggle against the ruling class is also completely different. Unlike animals, wage workers can organize to defend themselves, plan strikes and demonstrations, and think about a liberated society. Above all, however, unlike animals, they can analyze the social conditions that make them exploited and dominated and derive concrete steps for organizing their own liberation. Non-human animals, on the other hand, can defend themselves against torture in isolated cases, but because they lack the aforementioned abilities, they can only be objects of liberation from social exploitation.
Anyone who wants to create a world without exploitation, domination, and socially produced suffering must include animals in this endeavor. Firstly, although in a qualitatively different way than wage workers, animals are also exploited in the capitalist production process, and despite all the differences that have developed historically and socially, they share with humans the ability to suffer as a result. Secondly, animal production today, at least in the capitalist centers, is objectively irrational, not least because of the social and ecological damage it causes.
no, they must not
Then they don’t fight for a world without exploitation, domination and socially produced suffering.
Actually I just went to the store and did NOT grab the steak. Surprisingly this took me less time than going to the meat section.
and then you spent time making this comment instead of helping people end their oppression
I’m not morally obligated to help people or animals every moment of my life. I am morally obligated not to be the cause suffering I could easily prevent.
avoiding the meat aisle doesn’t prevent any suffering
Your comment implies the same moral superiority you criticize but in the opposite direction
Not really, I’m complaining that vegans putting animal rights above human rights is a snob and “morally superior” act that they always do, not unlike religious preachers condemning prostitutes and drunkards for their sinful ways