I think moral consideration should be based on concrete characteristics that give a being moral importance.
For example, wanting to experience pleasure and avoid pain and suffering, having an interest in continuing to live, seeking relationships, curiosity, and having preferences and goals. These are some of the characteristics that human laws are built to protect in human beings. We apply the same reasoning to cats and dogs.
Even when a person is unconscious, we still believe they deserve moral consideration. If we asked them before they became unconscious whether they wanted to remain alive, they would likely say “yes, please bring me back to life.” Their interests and preferences don't disappear simply because they are temporarily unconscious.
I still believe plants have their own form of intelligence, but they don't possess the kinds of interests, preferences or goals that would give them moral status.
I agree the question shouldn't be simply whether a being is sentient, but which characteristics make that being morally considerable in the first place.
I’m writing this letter to address an important matter that can significantly change your perception around the non human animals and how that has a negative impact on our planet, being one of the most atrocities in our history.
I know you love animals, as i saw your behaviour when you went to the zoo. You fed them and you were enthusiastic being around those animals and i remembered one sentence that i hope you can start using it in the future: “When i was a kid i went to the Zoo because i loved animals. Today, i reject to go the Zoo because i love animals”. This means the connection to animals always was there, but our perception should go from egocentric to an “empathiccentric”, meaning we should start putting ourselves in the animal position. You start thinking about how free we are to enter the zoo with your family and get back comfortable to our homes, while those animals still get jailed, just for the amusement of human beings in the next day. That’s the most compassionate expression you can take to really demonstrate affection to non-human animals and stop supporting this industry. If we want to connect with them, we should visit their homes and not force them to come to ours. Also if the argument is preservation, I believe a question should arise in our minds “Is it ethical to take some individual beings from their family and homes, to save the species?”. Bear in mind the animals which are born inside Zoos never can go back to the wild. Also one more question can deeply change how we view preservation: “Save them from what?”.
Agriculture land is mainly to feed livestock. The impact to change our diet to a plant based is so big we could free the land by 75%. This would increase the chances to give space for other animals to progress in their lifes, not only that but to give the opportunity to emerge new species. Maybe at the end we are trying to save them from how we behave by jailing them, but in this case the most effective way is to change our behaviour.
Also circuses, which you also normally go, have no other purpose besides entertainment. Animals in the circuses suffer and live their lives far from their home and families. They are sentient which means they have the capacity to subjective experience life through their senses, just like us. The fact they do those acrobatics is a reaction to an order which is linked with fear.
To conclude, empathy is the strongest weapon we have and can save lives, not only human lives but non human lives as well. I know you care about non human lives, there’s only a small step you should take to give them moral value, which is looking from their eyes. Hope you can change the course of humanity.
Hi Vasco,
I think moral consideration should be based on concrete characteristics that give a being moral importance.
For example, wanting to experience pleasure and avoid pain and suffering, having an interest in continuing to live, seeking relationships, curiosity, and having preferences and goals. These are some of the characteristics that human laws are built to protect in human beings. We apply the same reasoning to cats and dogs.
Even when a person is unconscious, we still believe they deserve moral consideration. If we asked them before they became unconscious whether they wanted to remain alive, they would likely say “yes, please bring me back to life.” Their interests and preferences don't disappear simply because they are temporarily unconscious.
I still believe plants have their own form of intelligence, but they don't possess the kinds of interests, preferences or goals that would give them moral status.
I agree the question shouldn't be simply whether a being is sentient, but which characteristics make that being morally considerable in the first place.
Hi Dear Friend,
I’m writing this letter to address an important matter that can significantly change your perception around the non human animals and how that has a negative impact on our planet, being one of the most atrocities in our history.
I know you love animals, as i saw your behaviour when you went to the zoo. You fed them and you were enthusiastic being around those animals and i remembered one sentence that i hope you can start using it in the future: “When i was a kid i went to the Zoo because i loved animals. Today, i reject to go the Zoo because i love animals”. This means the connection to animals always was there, but our perception should go from egocentric to an “empathiccentric”, meaning we should start putting ourselves in the animal position. You start thinking about how free we are to enter the zoo with your family and get back comfortable to our homes, while those animals still get jailed, just for the amusement of human beings in the next day. That’s the most compassionate expression you can take to really demonstrate affection to non-human animals and stop supporting this industry. If we want to connect with them, we should visit their homes and not force them to come to ours. Also if the argument is preservation, I believe a question should arise in our minds “Is it ethical to take some individual beings from their family and homes, to save the species?”. Bear in mind the animals which are born inside Zoos never can go back to the wild. Also one more question can deeply change how we view preservation: “Save them from what?”.
Agriculture land is mainly to feed livestock. The impact to change our diet to a plant based is so big we could free the land by 75%. This would increase the chances to give space for other animals to progress in their lifes, not only that but to give the opportunity to emerge new species. Maybe at the end we are trying to save them from how we behave by jailing them, but in this case the most effective way is to change our behaviour.
Also circuses, which you also normally go, have no other purpose besides entertainment. Animals in the circuses suffer and live their lives far from their home and families. They are sentient which means they have the capacity to subjective experience life through their senses, just like us. The fact they do those acrobatics is a reaction to an order which is linked with fear.
To conclude, empathy is the strongest weapon we have and can save lives, not only human lives but non human lives as well. I know you care about non human lives, there’s only a small step you should take to give them moral value, which is looking from their eyes. Hope you can change the course of humanity.
Regards,
Your friend from the future