Speciesism, moral consideration and anthropocentrism
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 сен 2024
- This video begins the second module of our course, which concerns the ethics of our treatment of animals and the evidence of their sentience. This video covers what moral consideration means and how speciesism consists of withholding moral consideration towards other species. It describes how having interests (by being sentient) is the correct criterion for determining moral consideration. It describes the different forms that speciesism can take and how they all constitute harmful discrimination.
In this course about wild animal suffering, you'll learn about the plight of animals living in the wild. Find out what the lives of the most numerous animals - invertebrates - are actually like and get an overview of evidence of their sentience (consciousness). Hear what the contemporary debates in animal ethics are and how they relate to showing moral consideration for nonhuman animals. Find out about a proposed field of research called welfare biology, the study of the wellbeing of animals living in the wild.
Please subscribe to our RUclips channel and click on the notification bell to get notified when new videos are released.
If you're interested in learning more about the subject, we have many articles on our website on the topics covered in the course.
www.animal-eth...
Facebook: / animal-ethics-14246584...
Instagram: / animal.ethics
Twitter: / animalethics
Reddit: / animal-ethics.org
Attribution:
Music: panspermia by airtone (c) copyright 2018 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial (3.0) license
dig.ccmixter.or...
Very good video, thanks !
I think this is your best video so far! I love the examples used, I almost felt like you could do a part 2 on this specific subject!, It's a big subject that's not talked about too often, or at least this directly, I want more! Very shareable, it opens the conversation for your other videos I feel, so I will be sharing this to a few of my friends for sure.
Thank you for your continued appreciation or work and for sharing our content!
What do we know about the psychological origins of speciesism? I imagine there are evolutionary psychology explanations.
Thank you. Great channel!
I took a class which proposed a theory on the Anthropocene connecting it to the industrial revolution, the Black Death, the little ice age and the volcanic eruptions which may have lead to it all… it’s funny that the path which lead us to need to consider our place on the planet may have been started by the planet herself
4:55-5:15 Describes discrimination by omissions, and I can't help but notice similar thinking on omissions crop up within human affairs, often motivated by cultural relativism: _We think it morally abhorrent to implement blasphemy laws here in the West, but if enough members of another faith in some distant part of the world wish to live that way, who are we to tell them they're wrong for it? Or that they're wronging the dissenting minorities in their own communities, who are stuck living outside the West, by forcing such laws on them?_
Then there's familial relativism: _We think it morally abhorrent to circumcise our newborn, but who are we to tell another couple that that they're wronging their newborn by circumcising him or her?_
Of course these attitudes only serve to reinforce speciesism in the name of communal self-determination: _Who are we to disrupt the natural flow of things by rescuing animals from natural disasters the way we would a member of our own human community?_
Insipid stuff.
are you a white supremecist? you kind of sound like it a lot of times tbh but cover it up with a lot of obscure language and veiled right wing dogwhistling. weird. like ive heard you basically say "antinatalism is fine, but white people should still procreate" you wrap it all up in a dense package, but it boils down to the same sort of cliche alt-right talking points.
@@extinctionistrecordsblackm6380 You're a funny one. Reading your comment, I thought for sure that my OP may've mentioned something about heredity or IQ or similar hotly contested findings in epigenetics or psychology. But my OP was beyond benign, what with this being a video on speciesism.
I've never been asked what you asked me, and I'm fairly sure that no one who actually knows me has so much as considered the possibility. But you do you.
I don't think whites should procreate, and didn't even propose that "westerners should procreate" or cloak things along those lines. Discussing procreation along game-theoretic considerations and recognizing that cultural egalitarianism is tripe doesn't spell procreative encouragement.
(And if you've got _extinctionist_ in your username you really shouldn't have this low a standard for what counts as "a lot of obscure language".)
@@extinctionistrecordsblackm6380 Also, read Scott Alexander on "dogwhistling" and tell me if you also suspect him of being a white supremacist. The post is from 2016, I'll link it if you can't find it. I prefer to not link stuff though as links up the odds of the comment being invisible/shadowed.
@@No_Avail
the reason I initially asked you the question, is because ive had fans of yours come to me and tell me the argument that "whites and secular people need to procreate because muslims are evil and will replace us and take over" and then linked a bunch of of your videos to back up their argument.
if you reject that, well fair enough then. i didnt really mean any insult i just genuinely am confused by a lot of the things you say and positions you hold. because you tend to always bring up how terrible muslims/arabs are it does start to sound like the typical right wing fear mongering after awhile since you always seem to focus on it + you comment about your hatred for 'speciesism' could be similar to you thinking anti-racism is stupid too. (indeed, youve made vids and posts showing disdain for anti-racism as well"
after awhile it does just start to come across as
"well maybe this guy just has weird ulterior motives"
but maybe its just me.
ok, ill read that thing you suggested. thx.
@@extinctionistrecordsblackm6380 If you're saying I uploaded numerous videos containing bigoted statements, or false statements, tell me what they are specifically. This is why I was curious about your feedback to the post on dogwhistling. If your threshold lumps someone as unbigoted as Scott Alexander into another offender, I'll know whether it's worth putting in more effort here.
_"after a while since you always seem to focus on it"_
Highly out of bounds and overindulgent use of "always" by you. October 2020 was last time I devoted a distinct blogpost to the topic of Islam and the idea that it's in some ways worse than its monotheistic peers, and that post was designed to be extremely meticulous. It focused on my specific ways of crafting subdivides in credences and articles of faith within Islam, so it pretty much begs casual readers to stop reading within the first few paragraphs. Some agenda I have. And that's just a post. In terms of videos, the last one I devoted to this or adjacent topics was uploaded just over five years ago now. And prior to that, I hadn't bothered discussing the topic in years.
This is not to imply that I no longer stand by the arguments advanced in those posts and videos. Rather, it's to show that they're the furthest thing from an endeavored hobbyhorse; the type one easily picks up on when around actual white supremacists with an axe to grind. The political desperation to get their way tends to ooze out of them, with few if any exceptions. Whereas if I (per my internet history) could be described as desperate to get my way, in a sense... it had to do with trying to get the more mainstream narratives to change and recognize that they've long been committing the moralistic fallacy on Muslims qua integration vs. assimilation, failing to distinguish between the morally good vs. bad on the one hand, and the dry, often empirically vetted truths vs. falsehoods on the other. In my experience, Muslim apologists in the West (mostly the UK, Canada, the US) have a habit of treating the good and the true as coextensive in principle. Utterly bogus and it had me incensed, particularly when a friend (or an otherwise decent person for whom I had a degree of respect) would indulge such fallacious reasoning. And I'd have been just as incensed with it if the religion being soft-peddled were a different one, i.e. with the vast majority of its adherents being western born and white.
Now, there was a flurry of videos by me in 2010 arguing many of those points angrily and impatiently. I decided to have most of those videos uploaded on my secondary "junk" channel. The reason for the high number of videos is due to YT having that 11 minute limit per upload in effect at the time for most channels, including mine. I decided to reply in video form to a bunch of tedious comments saying I'm wrong, meaning there was plenty of fodder spreading out to much more than 11 minutes worth of rant. So there, as elsewhere, the intensity or passion was more a product of specific interpersonal dynamics between me and people who do a good job raising my blood pressure, not bigotry.
But yeah, one video on this back in 2017 and nothing since. Lots of commenter-response skirmishes back in 2010, and little if anything following it, if memory serves.
Had I been driven by the motives you're speculating I may harbor, my output would've resembled... take your pick: Jared Taylor's. Even a hundredth of my output doesn't overlap with what he does. Inserting anyone else as a basis for comparison (comparing actual output, post by post, video by video) won't help build the "No Avail Might Be A Bigot" case. Because none of my points were bigotry. If you're repulsed by the sloppy feel-good beliefs of cultural egalitarians, you'll grasp this.
It's also possible to be speciesist the opposite way, discriminating against humans but not animals. although, this view is pretty obscure.
It does happen though. We can't really say for sure if there are non-human animals that would discriminate against humans but there are definitely humans that discriminate against humans claiming it as a defense for non-human animals. Usually they are eco-terrorists like PETA.
I get lost here on animal on animal attacks. Nature is always going to be hard for animals. I just dont know that theres more to it than that (just on this topic)
Possibly, we humans should develop a hunter-gatherer centered economy
Am I really discriminating, - guilty of poor judgement, - am I a bigot, a racist, - or maybe I'm an ordinary specie-ist - if I confess (with a smile) that personally
I would choose the company of animals to human beings any day of
my life.
#BoycottMeat and all other animal products of cruelty and exploitation in any way possible!
And be equally cautious about buying vegan foods because of pesticide use(Insecticides, rodenticides, etc, if the affected animals are sentient),and habitat destruction.
bot
it doesn't follow that the interests of "very different" entities should be weighted equally. there's a clear qualitative difference between the interest of an intelligent animal, say, a crow or a dolphin to find food, and the same interest as it might be found in a cockroach, and they clearly don't carry the same moral weight. I also don't think one could speak in any intelligible terms about enslaving, say, chickens, since they have no concept of self-determination in any meaningful sense to begin with.
all in all, at the end of this video, I still don't see why one shouldn't discriminate on the basis of species.
Who do you think you are 😂? What makes you think you know what chickens are thinking?
go to Sentiocentrism on wikipedia and click the Gradualism part
Well, I agree with this video, although I think some of the arguments are put very crudely. But I don't think it's going to convert many people, because the presentation is so poor. Wooden speech, talking to fast, poorly chosen/poorly timed clips. Sorry to be so critical of it, because we are on the same side, but please make videos that will actually convert people!
I’m not here to be converted, just to learn the facts, I love the concise presentation of information. I don’t have time for feel good fluff or bells & whistles.
@@foxdylan9536 Yes. The priority should be efficient information provision.
Only talks about animals, where are the plants in this discourse of speciesism?
Plants do not have the capacity to be harmed or benefited, because they are not able to experience anything. So, it is impossible to discriminate against them, as well as against any other non-sentient entity.
@@lucianocarloscunha5786 They do. Plants do feel distress when harmed. Science just hasn't advanced far enough to estimate the significance of this adequately. I am a believer that the reality we're currently in, is irredeemable. And that we can only ever minimize areas in which suffering manifests.
@@Gavengelica Farm animals are raised on plants, so eating plants directly results in using less plants.
The channel is animal ethics though.