4 ms·

The fact that people think dogs have higher intrinsic value than pigs, and hence deserve more rights, is based on completely arbitrary characteristics. The proo

icebraining 11y ago
The fact that people think dogs have higher intrinsic value than pigs, and hence deserve more rights, is based on completely arbitrary characteristics. The proof of that is that dogs are seen as food in some cultures, cows are seen as sacred in others, etc. It's all part of belief systems that, in most cases, are inherited without being questioned. The fact that the reasons are different doesn't mean they're arbitrary, merely not universal. Some cultures practice(d) cannibalism, does that mean that our opposition to that practice is necessarily arbitrary? I think it's clear that many, if not most, are not arbitrary - which doesn't mean they are well supported; not everything is valid just because it has some reason behind it. I have no idea if she has spent time within family farms, but I would guess that she, like most people versed in animal rights, would strongly disagree with exploiting the bodies and reproductive systems of animals unnecessarily. Regardless of it being done in a factory farm or in the best family farm, where animals roam free until the day they are sent to the house of slaughter, at a young age. No doubt, but that wasn't my issue with the video. I wasn't disagreeing with the opposition of exploiting animals unnecessarily, just with the theory of Carnism that she uses to support it. I inquired about her experience with family farms, not because they don't exploit animals, but because I believe they put a very obvious hole in her theory about why people do exploit animals. If you sent a perfectly healthy dog (or horse, or cat, or elephant) to slaughter, for profit or pleasure, in a culture that sees those animals as members of their moral community, you would get a very different reaction from society. No doubt, but her theory had more than just "people treat animals differently".
- solipsism 11y ago
  I think it's clear that many, if not most, are not arbitrary - which doesn't mean they are well supported; not everything is valid just because it has some reason behind it. The definition of arbitrary is "having no reason behind it". Sure, judging whether a particular classification counts as "arbitrary" is hard because the definition of "arbitrary" is squishy. But what you just said amounts to: It's not arbitrary. It might be arbitrary, but it's not arbitrary.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    No, what I meant is that even the non-arbitrary ones may not have good reasons behind them.
solipsism 11y ago
The fact that people think dogs have higher intrinsic value than pigs, and hence deserve more rights, is based on completely arbitrary characteristics Dogs are a bad example. Dogs have been our companions for tens of thousands of years. They have been so because they are useful to us -- we have developed a symbiotic relationship. Dogs understand us and are attuned to our emotions to a much higher degree than any other non-human animal. I wouldn't say it's arbitrary to place a higher intrinsic value on dogs than pigs. Don't get me wrong, I don't claim that as justification of anything. I'm a vegan. I just don't think something has to be arbitrary to be wrong.

icebraining 11y ago

The fact that people think dogs have higher intrinsic value than pigs, and hence deserve more rights, is based on completely arbitrary characteristics. The proof of that is that dogs are seen as food in some cultures, cows are seen as sacred in others, etc. It's all part of belief systems that, in most cases, are inherited without being questioned. The fact that the reasons are different doesn't mean they're arbitrary, merely not universal. Some cultures practice(d) cannibalism, does that mean that our opposition to that practice is necessarily arbitrary? I think it's clear that many, if not most, are not arbitrary - which doesn't mean they are well supported; not everything is valid just because it has some reason behind it. I have no idea if she has spent time within family farms, but I would guess that she, like most people versed in animal rights, would strongly disagree with exploiting the bodies and reproductive systems of animals unnecessarily. Regardless of it being done in a factory farm or in the best family farm, where animals roam free until the day they are sent to the house of slaughter, at a young age. No doubt, but that wasn't my issue with the video. I wasn't disagreeing with the opposition of exploiting animals unnecessarily, just with the theory of Carnism that she uses to support it. I inquired about her experience with family farms, not because they don't exploit animals, but because I believe they put a very obvious hole in her theory about why people do exploit animals. If you sent a perfectly healthy dog (or horse, or cat, or elephant) to slaughter, for profit or pleasure, in a culture that sees those animals as members of their moral community, you would get a very different reaction from society. No doubt, but her theory had more than just "people treat animals differently".

solipsism 11y ago
I think it's clear that many, if not most, are not arbitrary - which doesn't mean they are well supported; not everything is valid just because it has some reason behind it. The definition of arbitrary is "having no reason behind it". Sure, judging whether a particular classification counts as "arbitrary" is hard because the definition of "arbitrary" is squishy. But what you just said amounts to: It's not arbitrary. It might be arbitrary, but it's not arbitrary.
- icebraining 11y ago
  No, what I meant is that even the non-arbitrary ones may not have good reasons behind them.

solipsism 11y ago

The fact that people think dogs have higher intrinsic value than pigs, and hence deserve more rights, is based on completely arbitrary characteristics Dogs are a bad example. Dogs have been our companions for tens of thousands of years. They have been so because they are useful to us -- we have developed a symbiotic relationship. Dogs understand us and are attuned to our emotions to a much higher degree than any other non-human animal. I wouldn't say it's arbitrary to place a higher intrinsic value on dogs than pigs. Don't get me wrong, I don't claim that as justification of anything. I'm a vegan. I just don't think something has to be arbitrary to be wrong.