How do non-religious people motivate that humans have a higher "value" than animals?

[Macrobiotic]

I have more and more moved towards the ideas of deep ecology and stopped seeing humans as a species entitled to domination over others because of superior intelligence. A non-antropocentric world view.

I have always seemed to have more empathy for animals than for humans, although I have developed my own scale of measuring "human purity". This is not a racial biological term but rather expresses the relative innocense of the human character and soul. I rate and divide individuals based on this idea of human purity. To me all humans are not equal, the deciding factors for human value are corruption and purity. Intelligence breeds corruption. Even Confucius acknowledged this. A crude and clumsy person who "does his best" with a kind heart is still better than a skilled bully or a person living only for the laugh and the pleasure.

This is not based on human morals only but on universal empathy and innate goodness. Something I believe strongly in. Therefore, I can consider mentally disabled to have a higher "value" than intellectuals in many cases simply based on the degree of purity.

Anyway, since animals lack the corrupting element, namely intelligence, they are closer to a state of true purity. Animals are my friends. Therefore I am strictly vegan and eat inspired by buddhist and macrobiotic principles. I can't stand animal cruelty or the thought of animals being killed and tortured to improve human life.
What I want to know is, how do non-religious people justify "human value" and humans as inviolable whereas animals are not considered to have the same immunity to violation? I am genuinely provoked and insulted when a regularly meat eating, intellectually chauvinist person living only through a humanist perspective calls me "nazi" or something and concludes I have a "despicable lack of respect for human beings".

(Christians, jews and muslims don't need to bother replying. It's already well understood these people believe humans were created as the master species with the right to kill all others.)

 

[alecgraham]

Just a quick reply for now: animals may be your friends, but I disagree with you that they lack intelligence. You should read "Next of Kin", a book about chimpanzees by Roger Fouts. It's really good. For non-religious people like me, it gives you the warmest feeling that we are not alone in the universe (Don't even need to believe in aliens).

And speaking of chimps and that particular book, the chimps featured in it used to squash bugs without giving it a second thought. I don't think they were "justifying chimp value", necessarily. But, there is definitely some mechanism that makes it all too easy for us to look down on the lesser animals, or what we perceive to be lesser animals, much in the same way that we look down on what we perceive to be lesser races.

Now, who's going to stick up for the plants? ;-)

 

[Macrobiotic]

I shouldn't have said it like that. Animals do have intelligence but not to the degree where they can move beyond instinct by their own self awareness and will alone.

Chimps lack the awareness to understand squashing bugs is hurting the bugs. Humans have awareness. Chimps cannot be blamed, humans can.

 

[nahadef]

Eating animals is part of nature. I am an animal. Humans are at the top of the food chain. It doesn't trouble me at all.

I think an atheist, who doesn't place themselves above other species, is all the more capable of being part of the eco-system.

 

[alecgraham]

Chimps lack the awareness to understand squashing bugs is hurting the bugs. Humans have awareness. Chimps cannot be blamed, humans can.

Hmm, it's hard to say. It think they must know they're hurting monkeys when they hunt and kill them for meat. But, I suppose you can't apply that to most predators, like wolves and lions, which just do what they're programmed to do.

The vegan thing is a conundrum for me. I'm a meat-eater, but I really respect vegans, vegetarians and pescatarians.

 

[Macrobiotic]

Eating animals is part of nature. I am an animal. Humans are at the top of the food chain. It doesn't trouble me at all.

I think an atheist, who doesn't place themselves above other species, is all the more capable of being part of the eco-system.

The human civilization as it is now is destroying the eco systems. Simply for the sake of humans alone. Intelligence and self awareness should be a variable which should give responsibility to review ones position in the food chain, not just be treated as a reason for self entitlement.

Why is it worse when humans are killed than when animals are killed? How is this not putting humans above others? Why was Mengeles experiments worse than what's done to rats in laboratories every day? Or in the words of Morrisey "the Norway massacre was nothing in comparison to what's going on every day in McDonalds restaurants worldwide", or something like that. Why is a massacre of humans worse than killing animals in the millions?

I am personally disgusted when I see smiling consumerist families pumping their children full of artificial, environmental unfriendly garbage and dead animals and laughing happily together at McDonalds while animals are born in captivity only to be slaughtered.
If people want to eat meat they could eat each other instead. Human meat is said to be similar to pork.

 

[nahadef]

If people want to eat meat they could eat each other instead. Human meat is said to be similar to pork.

That's just being totally silly. If you don't see why then....

I agree humans do wreck ecosystems, but the thing is, we are part of nature, and nature doesn't care. The world will keep spinning with or without us, and nature and life will continue.

I'd rather see humanity survive the long-haul, but nature doesn't care.

Anyway, you wanted to know how I, as an atheist, can eat meat, and I've explained it. I never asked to hear your diatribes. You certainly don't want real understanding of a different point of view.

 

[Mike Cash]

There is no Buddhist prohibition against eating meat that I am aware of.

 

[Macrobiotic]

I don't see why it wouldn't be justified to eat human meat if one argues animal meat is fine.

Nature doesn't care but humans should care and not put human emotions on a piedestal above all other species. Even mice have emotions and can feel happy or sad about life.

The good thing for balance in the world would be if the human population was decimated with around ninety percent. The remaining humans would live responsibly and in certain fields create things themselves, combining old craft with the responsible use of modern technology.

With your arguing, "humans part of nature therefore meat is okay" then that means survival of the fittest is also human nature. Therefore genocide is also justified? Or is it only massmurder of animals which is "within nature"? Beyond that human morals and intelligence apply selectively for humans only?

---------- Post added at 11:18 ---------- Previous post was at 11:15 ----------

There is no Buddhist prohibition against eating meat that I am aware of.

Traditional food of buddhist monks is strictly vegetarian though. It led to the development of 精進料理.

 

[nahadef]

I don't see why it wouldn't be justified to eat human meat if one argues animal meat is fine.
Nature doesn't care but humans should care and not put human emotions on a piedestal above all other species. Even mice have emotions and can feel happy or sad about life.
The good thing for balance in the world would be if the human population was decimated with around 90%. The remaining humans would live responsibly and in certain fields create things themselves, combining old craft with the responsible use of modern technology.
With your arguing, "human part of nature therefore meat is okay" then that means survival of the fittest is also human nature. Therefore genocide is also justified? Or is it only massmurder of animals which is "within nature"?

Well, the thing is, I'm not stupid, so I can tell the difference between a human and pig. It's as simple as that.

And people who fantasise about 90% about the people in the world dying for the world's sake are utter hypocrites since if they really believed that, they would have already committed suicide.

Good luck convincing people to be cannibals in order to save the pigs and cows.

 

[Mike Cash]

Traditional food of buddhist monks is strictly vegetarian though.

Yes, but ask yourself why that is.

Buddhist monks in Thailand, for example, will quite readily eat meat.....and without going against any Buddhist teachings.

 

[Macrobiotic]

Well, the thing is, I'm not stupid, so I can tell the difference between a human and pig. It's as simple as that.

This just proves my point. Why would a human have a higher value? Atheists cannot explain this while at the same time claiming survival of the fittest is wrong when applied to humans. What do atheists base their morals on? Why is it wrong to hurt humans but not necessarily to hurt animals? Religious people at least have a solid argument, even though it is "God".

---------- Post added at 11:35 ---------- Previous post was at 11:32 ----------

Yes, but ask yourself why that is.

Buddhist monks in Thailand, for example, will quite readily eat meat.....and without going against any Buddhist teachings.

So? There are three major branches of christianity in Europe and in some ways they have contradicting traditions.

I also mentioned macrobiotics. There is nothing forbidding meat, no eco-principle based on morals, in this philosophy. It's simply based on that meat has too much "yang" energy and therefore clouds the thought and causes physical illness and cancer. However, these principles of Yin and Yang are easily applied to a vegan lifestyle since the "right" balance of Yin and Yang more or less equals specific forms of veganism. I combine the deep ecology non antropocentric principles with eastern spiritual principles. I believe meat is not only wrong, it is also defiling to spirit. It's not any more strange than implementing several different religions in ones life.

 

[nahadef]

Ah, I'm going to Burger King. Whoppers beat Big Macs every time. Top of the food chain.

 

[Mike Cash]

So? There are three major branches of christianity in Europe and in some ways they have contradicting traditions.

There is only an apparent contradiction in the situation I am talking about, not an actual contradiction.

Borrowing from buddhism and macrobiotics is a tool, not the guiding thought in itself.

I understand that. But what you think you are borrowing from Buddhism isn't in Buddhism.

The Buddhist prohibition is against killing, not against eating meat.

 

[Macrobiotic]

The Buddhist prohibition is against killing, not against eating meat.

I borrow the food tradition in itself, such as 精進料理 recipes. The principles of preparing the food, which is different than the modern western genetically modified soy industry where vegan equals "soy sausages". I also borrow the Yin and Yang part from macrobiotics. These are perfect components of an ecologically aware lifestyle.

 

[Mike Cash]

I borrow the food tradition in itself, such as 精進料理 recipes. The principles of preparing the food, which is different than the modern western genetically modified soy industry. I also borrow the Yin and Yang part from macrobiotics. These are perfect components of an ecologically aware lifestyle.

I, on the other hand, look at the principle of 無常 and just include an ecologically aware lifestyle among the many things not worth worrying about.

 

[BrianLewis]

This just proves my point. Why would a human have a higher value? Atheists cannot explain this while at the same time claiming survival of the fittest is wrong when applied to humans. What do atheists base their morals on? Why is it wrong to hurt humans but not necessarily to hurt animals? Religious people at least have a solid argument, even though it is "God".

Thanks for pointing that out. I can't find any logical reason why atheists would differentiate, besides criminal sanctions.

So? There are three major branches of christianity in Europe and in some ways they have contradicting traditions./QUOTE]Traditions usually have more to do with those in power that make them up. I assume that Mike Cash is saying that the Buddhist practice of not eating meat is simply a tradition created by someone that someone else looked up to.

I think if you considered the difference between "Intelligence" and "Wisdom" you might come to a conclusion. I have met many individuals that are intelligent, but lack any sort of common sense.

I do find it interesting that environmentalists will do anything to help a species survive, whether or not it was becoming extinct due to mankind's intervention. However, they never consider that the extinction may be a natural one to make room for another species. They could be, in fact, harming while helping. Should a species that is sickly, incapable of reproducing and hoarding a section of an ecosystem be saved from themselves, and a stronger species that would take that ecosystem should not be allowed to develop because of it?

It's completely your choice to be vegetarian, and I won't harp on that. However, I should warn you that a human being's internal organs depend on the nutrition derived from flesh. You might start having heart or stomach problems down the road. I have noticed most of the vegetarians I have known to have problems at 30 when they started in their 20s. Also, only about 10% of the supplements you take are actually absorbed by the body. I know it's slightly off topic, but it's something to be aware of.

You are aware that plants are alive as well correct? It has been observed on several occasions that they grow stronger when exposed to certain types of music. Could you not infer the same emotional connection towards plants that you do towards rats?

 

[Mike Cash]

I assume that Mike Cash is saying that the Buddhist practice of not eating meat is simply a tradition created by someone that someone else looked up to.

No, I'm saying that the Buddhist vegetarian tradition doesn't arise from a prohibition against eating meat.

 

[Half-n-Half]

With your arguing, "humans part of nature therefore meat is okay" then that means survival of the fittest is also human nature. Therefore genocide is also justified? Or is it only massmurder of animals which is "within nature"? Beyond that human morals and intelligence apply selectively for humans only?

"Survival of the fittest" does not mean that the "strongest" of a species get to kill off the weaklings en masse. Survival of the fittest refers to a species being able to adapt well to their environment so that they can survive and reproduce. It's usually the species that is best able to adapt that survives and passes on its genes, which is what is meant by "fittest".

I don't have a problem eating meat, but I do have a problem with cruel treatment of those animals we do eat.

 

[Macrobiotic]

It's completely your choice to be vegetarian, and I won't harp on that. However, I should warn you that a human being's internal organs depend on the nutrition derived from flesh. You might start having heart or stomach problems down the road. I have noticed most of the vegetarians I have known to have problems at 30 when they started in their 20s. Also, only about 10% of the supplements you take are actually absorbed by the body. I know it's slightly off topic, but it's something to be aware of.

You are aware that plants are alive as well correct? It has been observed on several occasions that they grow stronger when exposed to certain types of music. Could you not infer the same emotional connection towards plants that you do towards rats?

I most likely get better nutrition than the average modern industrial country person. The only supplement I take and even need to take is vitamin b12 and this is something the body can't absorb in large amounts. It has to be stored in small doses over time. Everything else, except for high grade protein, I get in abundance from the food I eat. I limit protein to the minimum.

Populations who live on mainly a vegetarian traditional diet are healthier than heavy meat eaters. Also, one reason why western vegans become sick in their 30's is probably due to the fact they eat lots of sugar, saturated fat, coffee, alcohol etc as well as getting much of their nutrition from supplements.

Eating meat and too much high grade protein is just food for cancer cells. It stimulates increased cell growth. People who hardly have cancer live of mainly vegetables. They also tend to live longer.

Humans can't even digest meat properly without the aid of negative bacterial growth. If humans were meat eaters evolutionary we would naturally have teeth the shape of Jaws from James Bond. Like a shark or cat or something.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

If you ask me humans really are not that intelligent. What we have that is special is better memory, which allows us to stack up memorized causes and effects better than other animals. I have seen animals do a lot of intelligent things. But the thing is, they can't memorize all the little causes and effects which would allow them to expand into more complicated behavior patterns.

It never ceases to amaze me how stubborn and unintelligent people can be, and how they reject new and better information for what they have memorized or gotten used to or grew up with.

Certainly there are more intelligent opinions on vegetarianism here than what you usually hear from your typical omnivore. Usually what you hear is pure nonsense that amounts to nothing more than a reluctance to change or even consider it for two seconds.

All this is why I too don't value humans much more than other animals, especially other mammals. And so, in my eyes, value is more a matter of the individual animal (including humans). I would be hard pressed to choose between a pet and a random stranger if it came down to it, but the stranger could make just one wrong move and he would be out of the running, just like that.

 

[Macrobiotic]

I was wrong to say animals are not intelligent. Of course they are in their own way. My hamster understands when I play hide and seek with him for example and responds to commands such as "where am I?", then he comes running to me, he learns how to reach hard to access places and remembers how he did it etc... I also had a cat which was almost calculating in her actions. She seemed to have some understanding of human psychology even. Even though her driving force was still instinct, it made her act intelligent.

Animals cannot become aware of their own instinct however and live only by this instinct. Humans are aware and can chose to not act on instinct, this is why humans are not on top of, but outside of, the food chain. We need to create sustainability without being predators while letting the eco-systems live undisturbed or in harmony with human civilization.

My initial question was still why humans from an atheist perspective are above animals in terms of being inviolable. Why killing and eating animals is more accepted than killing humans without basing it on a religious doctrine.

 

[Hezam]

 

[Macrobiotic]

You are muslim Hezam, so you don't count in this discussion. Religious people already justify their uncivilized standpoint well enough. This was aimed at atheists and humanists.

 

[Hezam]

You are muslim Hezam, so you don't count in this discussion. Religious people already justify their uncivilized standpoint well enough. This was aimed at atheists and humanists.

this is silly ...the way you think about religious people like if they don't have their own opinion ( non-religious opinion ) !
What about Animals that eat meat ?