4 ms·
It would be, at least to an extent. Even vegans (which I am) still recognise that some animals are smarter than others, which can result in different moral weig
by someNameIG 4y ago
It would be, at least to an extent. Even vegans (which I am) still recognise that some animals are smarter than others, which can result in different moral weights given to them. And it doesn't normally include humans.
- bscphil 4y agoI see, so vegans recognize that speciesism is "true" in the sense that some animals do have more valuable lives than others, and harms to some animals are worse than harms to others? Makes it a bit hard to know what the term is designed to achieve. Is it just an attempt to get us to re-evaluate our emotional attachment to some species (e.g. dogs) in comparison to others (pigs) - when it turns out that upon further analysis there's no objective justification for doing so?
- someNameIG 4y ago> Is it just an attempt to get us to re-evaluate our emotional attachment to some species (e.g. dogs) in comparison to others (pigs) - when it turns out that upon further analysis there's no objective justification for doing so? Yes it's more just this. It might but I don't think it has a particularly large philosophical underpinning, it's more just used as activism elwooddogmeat.com is a good example of its use in my opinion.