Philosophical Vegan Forum

Perhaps what triggered the attack from this post was my reference to an "ultra ethical community" which might have been seen as a mockery. I do not believe there is anything like an ethical vegan nor that becoming vegan automatically makes you more ethical, hence that reference. Yet, no one has answered the question for which this post was intended. What would be seen as worst or a punishable crime in a soociety of vegans?

If you are banned, it will be for violating the very minimal forum rules, not for having a different opinion. This is a free speech zone for the most part, but in order to communicate we need to avoid radically redefining already pretty clearly defined words.

You have already been informed as to why we are critical of your original post. You've either not understood or ignored the posts explaining the problem. It has nothing to do with your snide "ultra ethical vegan" remark. That makes us see you as an asshole, but does not make the question unanswerable.

I'll repeat: Most vegans do not believe that humans and non-human animals are all equal. There's nothing in the definition of veganism that claims that, and it's not a view held by anybody on this forum as far as I know.

Your question is premised on a false claim.

"Most vegans do not believe that humans and non-human animals are all equal."

Let's put this premise to the test then, given that you have made it clear there won't be any intention to discuss the articles and their implications regarding general vegan idiology.

Animals are not someone. Someone is an expression that most generally use to for humans. It might be very well then to refer to animals as something.

Yeah, animals. NOT humans.

Animals are something then. Not someone

Yes, but the problem arose when you EQUATED animals and humans. Animals are sentient organisms, but are NOT humans.

vegan81vzla wrote:"Most vegans do not believe that humans and non-human animals are all equal."

Let's put this premise to the test then, given that you have made it clear there won't be any intention to discuss the articles and their implications regarding general vegan idiology.

Animals are not someone. Someone is an expression that most generally use to for humans. It might be very well then to refer to animals as something.

You don't make any sense. You can call animals things if you want, you can call babies things, you can call anybody things. It's not philosophically relevant if you say he/she or it. Use whatever pronoun you want.

This is not what is at issue.

However, if you are suggesting that animals are inanimate, you are wrong. Or if you're suggesting there are two categories, you are wrong.
There is not a broad category "animals" and "humans".
You may reject science, but according to biology, humans ARE a kind of animal.

Not all animals are equal.

Cows are different from cats are different from fish are different from humans. We have extensive biological differences, as different animals have from each other.

Humans are usually more intelligent and emotional, and are typically regarded as generally having more moral value than most other animals.
Dolphins and other cetaceans, other great apes (humans are a great ape), and elephants are also usually regarded as having more value due to their higher intelligence.

There's usually a hierarchy. People disagree on the exact order, but something like:

Humans
Dolphins
Elephants
Other apes
Monkeys
Pigs
Dogs
Cats
Cows
Chickens
Mice
Fish
Insects
Worms
Oysters, rocks, plants, bacteria - no intrinsic moral value

The real list would be very long, with the most valuable at the top and the least valuable at the bottom.

If you oppose science and believe in supernatural souls that give certain beings value, then of course your ideology will be very different. But do not confuse vegans as believing all animals have the same value, or thinking that humans have the same value as other animals in general.

So speciesism IS a good thing. Thank god there are SO MANY vegans arguing FOR speciesism...

You're using arguments that I already know and agree. I know we are some kind of animal. Humans already know that animals are sentient beings. Trying to use those areguments for veganism is stupid, dumb and childish, which is my point all along. There has always been a need for people to want to separate from animals, either by believing we are God's greater work of creation (religious perspective) or evolution's most perfect achievent (scientifiic perspective). It's actually most vegans, who keep being antispeciesism like that is to be relevant for veganism, that are antiscience. Speciesism has always been a good thing. We are not animals.

vegan81vzla wrote:So speciesism IS a good thing. Thank god there are SO MANY vegans arguing FOR speciesism...

You misunderstand speciesism. I'm generalizing here.

I would not place the value of a brain-dead human with no family over a normal dog. If the human is no longer in possession of the traits that make that life of greater moral consequence, then the dog is of more value.
The human is not more valuable because he or she is human, the human is only more valuable because and IF he or she is in possession of those traits that are typical of humans that make him or her more valuable.

MOST humans are more valuable than MOST dogs. This is true maybe 99.999% of the time. But there are humans who have abnormalities or problems that devalue them by making them less or even non-sentient.
Call this ableism if you want (although I'm not talking about blind or deaf people, or those in wheelchairs who are totally sentient and are not devalued).
A person severely brain damaged, even, due to alcohol use or a car accident who can't understand the situation he or she is in or remember anything -- even though not totally brain dead -- may be more along the lines of the value of a dog.

It's only speciesism if you judge on species, and don't take into account the other meaningful factors.
Like it's only racism if you judge somebody on race, instead of taking into account intelligence, kindness, etc.

vegan81vzla wrote:You're using arguments that I already know and agree. I know we are some kind of animal. Humans already know that animals are sentient beings. Trying to use those areguments for veganism is stupid, dumb and childish, which is my point all along.

That animals are sentient beings is part of a strong moral argument for veganism. That humans are animals is only a counterargument to the dogmatic position that humans are beyond animals by class.

vegan81vzla wrote:There has always been a need for people to want to separate from animals, either by believing we are God's greater work of creation (religious perspective) or evolution's most perfect achievent (scientifiic perspective).

Yes, and that need is stupid and childish. The only way we can truly separate ourselves from wild animals is to be civilized and choose to be better -- to engage in moral behavior, and have compassion for and regard for others, even if they don't show it to us. Only by having compassion for animals do we really become something better.

vegan81vzla wrote:It's actually most vegans, who keep being antispeciesism like that is to be relevant for veganism, that are antiscience.

Speciesism is arbitrary, it goes against science and reason.
Anti-speciesism does not mean you regard all animals as the same. That's just a misunderstanding of the idea.
Anti-racism doesn't mean that you regard all humans as the same, only that you don't judge people arbitrarily on race. Judge people by the content of their characters.

If a dog comes up to me and says hello and then does some differential calculus on the ground, I'm going to judge that dog on the basis of its ability and intelligence, not on its species. I don't expect that to happen, but I'm not going to say "You're a dog, you are lesser than I a human".
More likely is a human who is severely brain damaged in some way, and if I see this, I'm not going to judge that person above animals with higher intelligence and sentience.

vegan81vzla wrote:Speciesism has always been a good thing. We are not animals.

Speciesism is an ignorant thing. It's a childish oversimplification of the morally relevant differences that are typical between different animals. Of course we're animals. But we can be civilized animals, we can be moral animals -- we can be better than wild animals.

All your arguemnts come from your particular perspective that the only way for humans to become vegans is that they should care about animals. There have been many examples that show how incorrect that vision is. That might be a reason for some to become vegan, but that is far from the only one or the most effective, hence the so many so called animal lovers who won't even consider veganism or would try it, only to go back to become reducitarians while perpetuating the notion that we need meet in our diets.

Veganism does not make individuals more moral or ethical or better people. The roots of carnism don't lie on how people regard animals, but on gluttony and addiction to a overall distructive behavior. Speciesism is not against reason, actually in our evolutionary path it became important to identify enemies, which most animals were to some extent. We had to identify animals that might have killed us foor food, or those we had to fight for to get food. Being antispeciesist comes from feelings and emotions, not reason.

We are not, "civilized" animals, we learn civility in the course of our lives. In order for either individuals or a collective to achieve higher civil standards, do they need to become vegan? Perhaps this would be the only thing we agree on, but for much different reasons.