Before I begin, let me first note that I think all forms of racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, etc. are disgusting, and I don’t understand how humanity expects to thrive while it keeps insisting that people of a certain race, gender, sexuality or disability are “lower-class”.
What I want to discuss is humanity (and SJW in particular)’s ridiculous disregard of speciesism.
Would you not assume that someone obsessed with equal rights in society would also be obsessed with the rights of animals? I would.
Unfortunately, it is the belief of many so-called “social justice warriors” that animals are not a part of society and do not deserve to be treated with a speck of respect or compassion.
Why is this? Well, I believe it to be the same reason for the disregard of racism, sexism, homophobia and ableism that existed a century ago: tradition. Social justice warriors declare themselves to be more open-minded than their grandparents, more respectful of others and more accepting of change. So why, then, are they so close-minded, disrespectful and outraged by change when it comes to the way we treat animals?
Hypocrisy is the answer. While they have achieved the open-mindedness to accept racism, sexism, homophobia and ableism as terrible and very real things, they refuse to accept that speciesism is the same, if not worse. They refuse to believe their grandparents’ notions of sexism, but agree with them on topics of speciesism.
I believe this is because many of these so-called “social justice warriors” are not as open-minded as they think. They have realised that racism, sexism, homophobia and ableism are wrong through the teachings of tumblr, but they haven’t been taught how wrong speciesism is and can’t see it without having their eyes opened for them.
Others, of course, know plenty about the cruelties of animal testing and farming but refuse to stop buying their favourite make-up and animal products because they’re selfish and, in my view, the worst kind of human scum.
As for those who are uninformed, that’s where we come in. Tumblr hasn’t taught the uninformed enough about animal rights, and many times, games of the selfish people mentioned above such as “spot the vegan” come first and turn neutral ignorance into anti-veganism.
We need to get there first. We need more posts detailing the benefits of veganism, the horrors of farming and animal testing, and the logic behind every point. Tumblr has made an impact on millions of people regarding racism, sexism, homophobia and ableism, and now it’s speciesism’s turn.
So speak out. Use your knowledge of what happens at dairy farms, the vegan-suited anatomy of the human body, the horrors of animal testing and the rejection of breeders to inform those who are neutrally ignorant. Inform them before “spot the vegan”, “we’re omnivores” and “animal testing is a benefit to society” gets there first.
Everyone mocks nihilism, but when you actually think about it, nihilists are the only people who are actually aware of the weakness of humanity’s “moral code”. Morals are fabricated and designed to suit individual people. Some think murder is wrong, others don’t. Ethical beliefs are just personal preferences, not rules set down by the King of the Universe – unless you’re religious, in which case I suppose this post is just for atheists.
While you’re reading this, you’re probably thinking, “That’s ridiculous. Of course murder is wrong.” but who told you to believe that? Just the society you live in. Animals don’t generally murder others of their own species because it’s counterproductive, not because their “morals” tell them not to.
True, some “morals” help us to create a better world, but who are we to determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”? Who are you to tell me what I believe is wrong when both your morals and mine are simply personal preferences? You think murder is wrong because society told you, I think the solution to Earth’s problems is the mass extinction of humanity because I can’t see any other way. What makes my views wrong and yours right? Nothing.
Nihilism is above the petty squabbles of “who’s right and who’s wrong?” because nihilists have acknowledged the fact that morals are simply personal views, while the rest of society insists that their morals are the correct ones to have and that everyone else is wrong.
For this reason, despite nihilism’s negative connotations, it is actually a more informed view on the world. Most people don’t know that “right” and “wrong” aren’t real things.
Tumblr likes to tell people that they don’t owe the world anything. Tumblr likes to tell people that the idea of owing the world is capitalist garbage, but they’re wrong.
Of course, capitalism wants you to work from the day you’re born, that’s totally true, but you do owe the world for existing. Every human on the planet owes the world so much that they can never pay up. We all contribute to pollution, unnecessary slaughter and hatred in one form or another, and we all owe the world big time for our existence. We kill, destroy and create harmful things for the benefit of ourselves alone. We owe the world endlessly for all the death and pollution we’ve diseased it with.
Tumblr likes to tell people that they owe the world nothing to make them feel better, but I’m afraid your feelings do not come first when discussing your debt to the planet. We doowe the world, and eventually, we’ll have to pay up.
Another sickening word frequently used by the human race in a completely inaccurate context is “animal”.
People describe disorderly, violent, disgusting, evil or criminal people as “animals”. I’ll never understand this. Animals are innocent. No animal has ever killed for sadistic pleasure, no animal has ever been “evil”, and no animal has ever knowingly committed a crime. Animals do nothing but what their instincts tell them to. The only instances in which an animal is aggressive towards a human are caused by either hunger or provoking. Most animals will not attack you for entering their territories, most animals will not attack you if they are well-fed, and no animal in the world will attack you for the pleasure of seeing you die.
So why, then, do humans always refer to people they disapprove of as “animals”? No human in the world is better than an animal, according to morality, which is usually the case when people are accused of being “animals”. Every human has done something sadistic, evil or murderously careless. We as humans are capable of morality, and therefore we are the only animals able to be evil and sadistic.
Animals cannot be in any way morally wrong or “evil”, because they do nothing but what their instincts tell them to.
So, next time you think of calling someone an “animal”, think twice. They’re not an animal, they’re disgusting.
The term ‘animal’ to refer to ‘disorderly, violent, disgusting, evil or criminal‘ people or acts comes from the theological concept of carnality.
“Carnal car·nal [kahr-nl] adjective 1. pertaining to or characterized by the flesh or the body, its passions and appetites; sensual: carnal pleasures. 2. not spiritual; merely human; temporal; worldly: a man of secular, rather carnal, leanings.
bodily, lustful, lecherous, lascivious, libidinous, concupiscent. Carnal, sensual, fleshly, animal all refer to bodily rather than rational or spiritual aspects of humans. Carnal although it may refer to the body as opposed to the spirit, often refers to sexual needs or urges: carnal cravings, attractions, satisfactions. Sensual implies a suggestion of eroticism: sensual eyes; a sensual dance; it may also refer to experience of the senses: a sensual delight. Fleshly may refer to any physical need or appetite, sex as well as hunger and thirst: the fleshly sin of gluttony; fleshly yearnings. Animal refers to sexual appetites in a censorious way only; it may also describe pleasing or admirable physical characteristics or appearance: animal lust; to move with animal grace. 2. earthly, natural.”
It comes from the expectation of humans to live up to a universal moral code which in theological belief is superior to that of animals because it’s believed (especially in the Abrahamic religions) that humans are the only life-form which have souls, therefore can distinguish right from wrong and have the capacity to adhere to a prescribed moral law. Non-naturalism.
This means abstaining from desires which specifically pleasure your senses, your body, your material conditions, and outbursts of destructiveness (such as the acts of violence you were referring to) which according to theistic moral law are bad because they are desires of physical, ‘worldly’ origins, rather than ‘spiritual’ and pertaining to God.
OP, "Animals cannot be in any way morally wrong or “evil”, because they do nothing but what their instincts tell them to.” Are you a theist? because you seem to separate human from animal along the lines of moralistic principles despite humans being merely another organic sentient species walking the planet.
If God, souls, and all that supernatural crap stuff does not exist, and it’s just us alone in the natural universe, then who’s to say that humans also do not but what our evolutionary instinct tells us? whether these instincts be altrusitic or barbarous.
But here is a conundrum: If atheism is correct, whatis right and wrong? Is there even such thing? Metaethics studies the macro concept of morality with scientific/non-theistic bias, if you are interested in learning more.
(I am not a moral nihilist, but it’s certainly interesting to study)
I believe that animals do not have the capacity of morality in that they do not know anything more than their instincts. I am not a theist, and don’t believe in “souls”, but the term is simply used to mean “conscience” in all cultures, which I do believe in. I have never seen nor heard of an animal attacking another simply because it wants to see it die. There is always a cause, be it illness, hunger or provocation. Humans frequently do things for sadistic pleasure, and it is everyone’s belief that humans are of a “higher level” of intelligence than the other organisms on Earth. This “higher level” is conscience – the capability of creating and “understanding” right from wrong. Since we are capable of this and I believe animals are not, only humans can be “evil”, because only we understand that we are doing “wrong” when we are sadistic.
Referring to your point on carnality, that still does not explain why nor how animalistic behaviours are more vile than human ones. Both animals and humans have bodily urges, but animals do not have bodily urges to kill for pleasure. Humans do, because humans are capable of sadism. Bodily urges are not wrong, but sadistic ones are, and only humans are capable of that.
Of course it is not my place to say what is “wrong” or “right”, but neither is it any human’s. Morality is based on personal views, but I think every creature on the Earth, were it able to understand humanity’s crimes, would agree that what humans are doing is wrong.
Humans do not simply do what instincts tell them to because we are capable of free will and conscience. Since we can tell “right” from “wrong”, this gives us the ability to choose what we do. Our instincts do not guide us in the way animal ones do. They are still there, of course, but no sane human’s instinct tells them to kill for pleasure, and we do it anyway.
As far as we can tell, animals do nothing but follow their instincts. They can learn and choose to take different routes, of course, – animals are not stupid – but in the end, the different routes are just means of obtaining food or a mate. No animal goes out of its instinct’s calling to do something for “fun”. Captive animals perform for food or out of fear, and wild animals hide, kill, eat and breed for survival purposes only. Their instincts tell them to pass on their genes. Human instincts say the same thing, but people choose not to have children. No animal makes a conscious decision to avoid breeding.
Your first paragraph does bring me back to my original point, though. If “animal” is used to mean “non-spiritual”, why do people believe that they are “spiritual” and “good”? As I originally stated, humans are anything but good. We are not spiritually kind because we destroy, we kill, and we torture for sadistic purposes alone. Sure, there are “nice” humans, but every human has done something sadistic or purposelessly destructive in their life, and people tend not to go out of their way to be kind, but they often go out of their way to be cruel.
Surely instinctual, animalistic behaviour is better than “spiritualism”, if that is what it entails.
Another sickening word frequently used by the human race in a completely inaccurate context is “animal”.
People describe disorderly, violent, disgusting, evil or criminal people as “animals”. I’ll never understand this. Animals are innocent. No animal has ever killed for sadistic pleasure, no animal has ever been “evil”, and no animal has ever knowingly committed a crime. Animals do nothing but what their instincts tell them to. The only instances in which an animal is aggressive towards a human are caused by either hunger or provoking. Most animals will not attack you for entering their territories, most animals will not attack you if they are well-fed, and no animal in the world will attack you for the pleasure of seeing you die.
So why, then, do humans always refer to people they disapprove of as “animals”? No human in the world is better than an animal, according to morality, which is usually the case when people are accused of being “animals”. Every human has done something sadistic, evil or murderously careless. We as humans are capable of morality, and therefore we are the only animals able to be evil and sadistic.
Animals cannot be in any way morally wrong or “evil”, because they do nothing but what their instincts tell them to.
So, next time you think of calling someone an “animal”, think twice. They’re not an animal, they’re disgusting.
Humans believe themselves to be more important than every other species on the planet, and the reason for this escapes me.
The truth of the matter is that humans are the least important species on the planet. Not only do we pollute, slaughter and rob the Earth and its inhabitants; we are not even part of a real ecosystem. We have no purpose.
Humans farm animals and crops rather than hunting or scavenging. We do not regulate animal or plant populations in any real food chain because we cage off our unnatural food sources from other creatures. We breed animals and plants into confined spaces so that we may regulate the numbers and feed ourselves without having to worry about other animals taking their share of the produce. Humans are not part of a real ecosystem and are therefore unnecessary; humanity has no purpose on Earth, no reason to exist, and no reason to continue hindering the lives of other organisms on the planet.
Contrastingly, most flies help with not only the regulation of other fly populations, but the break-down of waste substances such as rotten foods and faeces. This allows the Earth to reuse the minerals and allow new plants to grow. Flies that eat nectar also help with the pollination of plants.
Hypocritically, humans like to think of flies as “worthless pests” that should be killed on sight.
Humans are worse than that, then, for they are of far less use to the planet than flies.
“Humane” is the sickest word in the English dictionary.
It means to show compassion, kindness, sympathy… which is all well and good, but how could any person be so unbelievably narrow-minded as to define that as being “humane”? How dare people use a word that includes the word “human” to mean such things? Humans are anything but “humane”.
Humans are the only animal on the planet capable of cruelty.
And don’t you dare, even for a second, tell me that “but cats are evil because they kill for fun”. Cats kill because it’s their instinct. They do not kill because they find conscious, sadistic pleasure in destroying other animals.
Unlike humans, of course.
But back to the point; the word “humane” is used most commonly in the context of “ethical” treatment of animals – another sickening subject.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard the term “humane death”, which sounds like rather a hypocritical oxymoron, if you ask me. Killing an animal for unnecessary reasons, be it farming, medical advancements, etc. can never, neverbe kind, compassionate or sympathetic. The only “humane” death an animal can be sentenced to is euthanasia when it is in enormous, untreatable suffering.
The fact that humans have the disgusting self-righteousness to use the word “humane”, especially when referring to the deaths of animals, makes me physically sick.
I am ashamed to be a part of this species.
And I will never be able to apologise enough for what humanity has done to the other creatures of this Earth.
