If there were no humans, the wolves would claim ownership over the moose, and the foxes over the rabbits. The moose and rabbits would claim ownership over the willow bark and the clover. I don't know that awareness alone – the main distinction between humans and non-humans, and between other animals and plants – gives us a moral obligation to avoid using animals and other "lesser" life forms for our sustenance and benefit.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Wolves do not claim ownership over their prey. Slavery is not a natural part of life; animals do not enslave other animals - that is a unique and twisted human phenomena.
Carnivores eat other animals for survival, and do not enslave each other. They live in freedom according to natural laws of their environment.
Human beings do not need to eat animals for sustenance, and certainly not for their own benefit. Humans can thrive on plant-based foods, as evidenced by the growing number of world class vegan athletes. Taste and convenience are not valid justifications for the slaughter of hundreds of billions of animals per year.
I hope you won't mistake me, I am not advocating for mass farming and slaughter practices. But I do believe there is little harm in hunting or free-pasturing animals for byproducts and meat. All forms of food have nutritional advantages and disadvantages, and people should be free to choose the sustenance that suits them best for reasons of economics, health, and preference.
I don't know, also, that there is a meaningful difference between murdering something and enslaving it, in this context. To commit violence against something is to limit its freedom, as is slavery. So the wolf limits the freedom of the moose, and the moose limits the freedom of the willow.
It could be argued that we enslave plants by farming, or that some species of ant enslave fungus. Another example of more intelligent/organized life forms owning less intelligent forms. Again, I don't know that awareness excludes us from participating in this "natural" order.
I don't know the answers on this one. It seems to me that awareness IS the principle difference between creatures vegans give leave to murder and creatures they don't give leave to murder. And I still don't know that it matters. I'll keep thinking on it.
The answer lies in the Golden Rule. If we wouldn't want a higher race of beings to enslave, rear, and hunt humans for food, it would be hypocritical of us to treat the animals with the same token of cruelty. We understand that the Golden Rule applies to us, but not the animals.
The non-aggression principle states that it is wrong to initiate violence against non-aggressors. If an animal, such as a cow, hasn't violated your natural rights, why choose to kill and eat it? Is that not a violation of the non-aggression principle? Why hunt, when none of us would want to be hunted by a higher race of beings?
Plants are not sentient beings and have no concept of freedom, fear, pain or suffering. They have no central nervous system, no sexual organs, no heart, no brain etc. If it's not possible to rape a plant, how can one murder a plant?
I appreciate you taking the time to read and comment. This is one of the most controversial and taboo topics there is.
I don’t think the matter of sentience is as cut-and-dried as many think, though.
http://goodnature.nathab.com/research-shows-plants-are-sentient-will-we-act-accordingly/
Plants are incredibly sophisticated organisms (photosynthesis is no joke), but they are not conscious in the way us humans and animals are.
Of course it is not the same, but that is the same argument being used to defend animals here, is it not? A dog or a fish is not conscious in the same way as I am, either.
What separates us from the animal kingdom is our intellect and reason. With that said, neither are justifications to slaughter animals. There are many humans (the disabled) who are lower in intelligence than animals, yet their decreased capacity for self-awareness and self-expression is not a justification for murder.
"The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"