Of course, the immediate reaction of many meat eaters to the ad (see this thread for example) is "There's no valid comparison here! Killing animals is completely amoral, whereas the holocaust was immoral!"
Actually, the reaction is "killing animals is
moral, whereas killing humans is not." I do not justify breeding and slaughtering animals for food because it is somehow outside of morality. I consider it explicitly moral - it is an honor to be a part of the food chain, an honor for us to eat animals, and an honor for them to be eaten by us. The immorality is in mistreating animals, or taking their sacrifice for granted.
Hence the outrage. The people killed in the holocaust were worthy; dumb animals are not.
No, both are worthy, but of different things. Animals are worthy of playing an invaluable role as food - they deserve respect, good treatment, and gratitude for the sustenance they provide and its advancement of our species. Destroying millions of humans simply because you dislike them is a different beast entirely. One is the circle of life, the other is cruel nihilism.
Nor are the food animals in question starved and abused in the way that the Holocaust victim pictured was - there's an aspect of wanton cruelty and sadism, above and beyond the actual killing, that characterizes the Holocaust, and which is neither acceptable nor generally present in food animal production. Cows like the one pictured in the ad are
fattened, at considerable expense, and shielded from strenuous labor and stress.
In my experience, most meat eaters are outraged by that suggestion too, once they really consider what it means (if they ever do).
Straw man (like all of the material quoted above). The omnivores you're interacting with here don't appear to be displaying any such hostility.
There are discernable effects. Awareness of animal rights and welfare issues has increased dramatically over the past few years. You're probably just not looking out for that kind of thing.
Animal welfare, sure; animal
rights, as such, no. Go ahead and point out some significant changes in animal rights from PETA campaigns, if you're serious about this - you say they're discernable, so cite them. Or, just continue taking cagey shots at me, if you're content to come off as insecure and combative.
Interesting that you regard it as "choir-preaching", though. Maybe you're just not interested in the message.
The message in question is designed to alienate me at the outset - it literally accuses anyone who eats meat of complicity in 6 Holocausts per day, every day. That's preaching to the choir, and it's difficult to even imagine a more combative, alienating message to broadcast. In comparison, I have few qualms with, for example, their recent anti-fur campaigns, which are much more inclusive and effective. They
do know how to do this stuff, but frequently fall into the trap of throwing red meat to true believers.
So, when the vast majority of people had no qualms about keeping human slaves per se, then there was no real problem, as long as the slaves did not suffer. No suffering = no problem for the majority of slave owners. Yes, it may have been racist, but nobody was particularly bothered by that. Why would they be? It's perfectly natural to keep slaves. It's been done throughout human history. If animals could do it, they'd do it too. So it must be ok then. Right?
Nope. I thought I'd already made it clear that I reject moral equivalence between humans and animals. So why would applying my arguments to humans bother me? Treating humans as animals is wrong. Treating animals as animals is not. There is a salient difference between the two categories.
And then there's the fact that it's not possible to keep humans as slaves without causing them suffering.
But let's pursue this analogy a bit further - the proposed solution to this "slavery" is not the same one as the solution to actual human slavery. We aren't countenancing setting food animals free, but rather eliminating them entirely. Would you say that preventing black people from reproducing, and thereby making them more-or-less extinct, would have been preferable to continued slavery? Because that's what you propose we do with all those chickens, cows, pigs, etc. - instead of breeding, raising and slaughtering them, we'll just prevent them all from even existing in the first place. It is unclear how assigning an inherent value to animal lives would support that course of action - in fact such a principle seems to be basically a wash as it relates to diet.
You won't even begin to act morally until the people pointing out your immorality are whiter than white in everything they do?
Nope. What I said is that I won't listen to radical rhetoric coming from people who lack the courage of their (stilted) convictions. In the meantime, I'll continue to assess my own morality on my own terms, including an open mind for serious, well-meant input. You're welcome to provide such, if you're interested in doing so. Or you can continue acting like a condescending prick, and I'll continue to write you off. Your choice.
Interesting. It gives you a convenient out, doesn't it? Absolves you of responsibility. How nice for you.
The only thing is gives me a convenient out of is taking blowhards seriously. And, yes, it is rather nice to absolve myself of any such "responsibility."
I think you'll find that animal rights is not based on the principle that it's wrong to eat anything. It's a slightly more nuanced position than that.
That would be a decent bit of snark if I'd suggested that animal rights is based on the principle that it's wrong to eat anything. Fortunately I never said anything that could be reasonably construed as such.
What I
have suggested is that if equal consideration applies to all species, then why is it only wrong to instrumentalize and kill species with nervous systems similar to our own? Certainly, some eaters do not think that it is (Jains, fruititarians, etc.), and so I take their categorical moral claims seriously (although I disagree). When I hear them from somebody that happily kills plants, on the basis that plants do not suffer, it just looks like the usual animal welfare perspective masquerading as something more absolute for rhetorical points.
But, by all means, go ahead and prove me wrong. Maybe there is some way to reject speciesism and have equal consideration tell you that's it's okay to kill organisms that don't have a nervous system comparable to yours. But I'm not seeing it, and snarky mischaracterizations of my own statements aren't going to change my mind.
The right not to suffer is one right. The right not to be treated as property able to be arbitrarily killed at whim is a different right, but an equally valid one. Understand?
Obviously I do - you'd have noted the running distinction between animal welfare (i.e., suffering) and animal rights (i.e., life) in the post you are responding to, if you'd bothered to comprehend it. But, hey, why waste a pretense to be oblivious and insulting, right? That's way more fun than being a grown-up.
Correct. Which is why it is important to understand that animal rights proponents do not base their arguments solely on welfare grounds.
Yeah, no shit - such distinction is exactly what I was speaking to. Did you actually read the post that you're responding to, or just skim through it with an eye for sentences that you could pull out of context, misrepresent and attack?
Are you blind to the irony of behaving this way in response to complaints that animal rights advocates are ineffectual (and even, counterproductive) blowhards who ought to be ignored?
Maybe it would be worth your while to do a little independent research on what arguments are actually made, rather than spending your time setting up and knocking down straw men.
I'm speaking to the arguments that you yourself have made, claiming to justify a vegetarian diet on the basis of equal consideration and associated rejection of speciesism. It seems that you agree that these are insufficient to justify the killing of plants for food - and that the consideration of suffering (i.e., welfare) must be introduced to justify your diet. In which case, the stuff about equal consideration and rights is spurious - it's just a repackaging of animal welfare, exaggerated for rhetorical effect. And so their inclusion looks a lot like a dishonorable attempt to sex up your rhetoric - all the better to club people over the head with. Likewise the commonplace restriction of consideration to animals, in which context that stuff looks a lot stronger (since the troublesome question of why plant life is devalued is avoided at the outset).
Lastly, telling people that they ought to go learn stuff for themselves is, in this context, obtuse. You (and PETA) are advocates for a fringe position - you can either make your case, or resign yourself to irrelevancy. Complaining that everyone else doesn't do your advocacy for you is just asinine, and isn't going to change anyone's minds about the subject (although it may make them more inclined to ignore you).