"Liberation and Justice for ALL" My Essay on Animal Rights

[khaetlyn]

I'm in grade 10 and take an English III honors class at my high school. The semester is almost over, and between reading American literature like Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath and Arthur Miller's play The Crucible, our teacher assigned us a persuasive essay on any topic we wanted.

If you are interested in any of the topics discussed, I suggest reading the book Making a Killing: The Political Economy of Animal Rights by Bob Torres and checking out the website http://www.abolitionistapproach.com which is run by Professor Gary L. Francione, author and distinguished law professor at Rutgers University.

If you read the whole thing and have any questions or comments, let me know! I would love to discuss them.

My essay, "Liberation and Justice for ALL," is as follows:

Liberation and Justice for ALL

In Isaac Bashevis Singer’s famous novel Enemies, a Love Story, Singer writes ”…in their behaviour towards creatures, all men were Nazis. The smugness with which man could do with other species as he pleased exemplified the most extreme racist theories, the principle that might is right.” This "racist theory" Singer speaks of in his 1966 novel is now more commonly known as speciesism, a term created after Enemies was published in 1973 by British psychologist Richard D. Ryder. "I use the word 'speciesism'," Ryder wrote in 1975, "to describe the widespread discrimination that is practised by man against other species ... Speciesism is racism, and both overlook or underestimate the similarities between the discriminator and those discriminated against." The ideology of speciesism, that human animals are inherently superior to non-human animals, is used to exclude non-human animals from one's moral community because they do not belong to our species and they do not possess our form of cognition and intellect. Just like race and sex are irrelevant criteria when granting moral rights, species is an arbitrary characteristic when granting access to the moral community.

Joan Dunayer, in her book Speciesism, said:

"Whenever you see a bird in a cage, fish in a tank, or nonhuman mammal on a chain, you're seeing speciesism. If you believe that a bee or frog has less right to life and liberty than a chimpanzee or human, or you consider humans superior to other animals, you subscribe to speciesism. If you visit aquaprisons and zoos, attend circuses that include "animal acts," wear nonhuman skin or hair, or eat flesh, eggs, or cow-milk products, you practice speciesism. If you campaign for more-"humane" slaughter of chickens or less-cruel confinement of pigs, you perpetuate speciesism."

Some proponents of speciesism claim that humans "have the right to compete with and exploit other species to preserve and protect the human species." If one had instead said that whites "have the right to compete with and exploit people of color to preserve and protect the white race," we see how unjustifiably racist the speciesist ideology really is. To reject racism is to support the rights of people of color. To reject sexism is to support the rights of women. Therefore, to reject speciesism is to support the rights of animals. But what, exactly, are "animal rights"?

Defining Animal Rights and Equality

Peter Singer, a utilitarian and author of Animal Liberation, rejects moral rights as a general matter altogether and uses the term “rights” as a loose word or political shorthand, but many still associate Singer with animal rights philosophy, calling him the "father of the animal rights movement." Even more people consider People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals to be the definitive organization for animal rights activism, even though most of their campaigns center around animal welfare (improving conditions while the animals are exploited) instead of animal rights (questioning the fundamental principle whether it is okay to exploit animals in the first place.) Not many people acknowledge Gary L. Francione, distinguished professor of law at Rutgers University and author of Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog? and Rain Without Thunder, Bob Torres, author of Making a Killing: The Political Economy of Animal Rights, or Vincent J. Guihan, host of We Other Animals Radio and podcast, even though it is these people who are true proponents of animal rights—not animal welfare or “rights-like” protection.

To clarify, when the term “animal rights” is used, it does not mean dogs would get the right to vote, or that elephants would get the right to bear arms, or that birds would get the right to a fair and speedy trial. The concept of animal rights does not indicate that non-human animals have equal rights to humans; it means equal consideration of their interests. Though human and non-human animals are not the same in all respects, we do have similar interests. It is at the point where our interests overlap—seeking comfort, avoiding discomfort, wanting to continue existence in pursuit of life and liberty—that the reasoning 'they aren’t human' becomes unjustifiable as it refuses to give their interests equal consideration.Disregarding unimportant characteristics such as race, sex, and species, the principal of equality requires that one instance of suffering must be counted equally with the like suffering of any other being.

Morally disrespectful behavior occurs when those who stand at the stronger end of a power relationship treat those at the weaker end as if they are objects. Being the property of another involves the commodification of another sentient being; treating them as a something rather than a someone.
While there are many different ideas on what rights someone should have, there is one right that is almost universally accepted; most agree that people have interests in not being the resource or slave of someone else. This is because slaves do not have any real rights. Any protection slaves receive is strictly consequential; slaves are protected only to the extent that it benefits someone else, usually the slave owner. Slavery treats the enslaved as only having extrinsic or conditional value and denies them inherent value, their value beyond their use to others.

If animals are given rights, should they not they be held accountable for breaking laws? If they cannot understand the concept of rights, communicate, or respect the rights of others, why should they be granted any rights? Non-human animals would fall into the category of marginal cases when it comes to accountability and intellectual capability. The mentally disabled, senile elderly, and human infants cannot be held accountable for infringing upon other’s rights or understanding the concept of rights, but rights are not withheld from them. Since species classification is irrelevant when it comes to moral rights, rights cannot be withheld from non-humans for the same reasons they cannot be withheld from the mentally disabled, the senile elderly, and infants.

In Sojourner Truth’s famous speech, “Ain’t I a Woman," Truth said, “Then they talk about this thing in the head; what's this they call it? [Member of audience whispers, "Intellect"] That's it, honey. What's that got to do with…rights? If my cup won't hold but a pint, and yours holds a quart, wouldn't you be mean not to let me have my little half measure full?”

The basis for receiving rights should not be based on one’s race, sex, sexual orientation, or species classification—because all of these are completely arbitrary—nor should it be based on the ability to communicate, contribute to society, or emancipate oneself—because some of the aforementioned oppressed groups cannot do this either, but are still due basic rights. The basis for the basic right not to be considered property, and therefore being granted legal personhood and assured their interests are given equal consideration, is sentience, or the ability to feel pain.

Veganism

If the above theory is accepted, how is it put into practice? The answer is simple and easily applicable in every day life: veganism.

It is important to understand that just as an abolitionist in respects to human slavery could not continue to be a slave owner, an abolitionist in respects to animal exploitation cannot continue to consume or use animal products.

Arguments over the ethics of eating plants or “plant sentience” may arise, but plants lack a heart, brain, and central nervous system, so there is no reason to believe they feel pain. Even if they did (which they do not) being vegan would still be more ethical than consuming animal products as animals raised for food and other purposes must be fed a large amount of plants to be used and slaughtered, making people consuming animal products responsible for the “death” of more plants than a vegan.

Use, Not Abuse

Many think that “free-range” animal products and animal welfare reforms (like bigger cages for egg laying hens are more “humane” slaughter for cows) are acceptable alternatives to going vegan. This is not the case.The labels under which animal products may be sold are often misinterpreted and/or misunderstood as to what they truly stand for.

First, free-range chickens and turkeys must have access to the outdoors, but no other criteria, such as the density of birds in the area, the frequency, the duration of how much outdoor access or the quality of the land that is accessible is provided or defined. Surgical mutilations, like dehorning, castration, and debeaking, without any pain relief are permitted. Male chicks from free-range egg farms can still be killed after being hatched because, not being able to lay eggs they are of no use to the industry. The same goes for organic dairy farms; male calves do not produce milk and would cost the companies money to keep them alive, so they are sold and slaughtered for veal.

Basically, “humane” slaughter is still slaughter, and “kind” confinement is still confinement.

Second, animal welfare reforms and the consumption of “humane” animal products do nothing to abolish the property status of animals.
Essentially, the problem is not the treatment of the animals, but the fact they are being used in the first place. As long as they are being used as means to human ends, they are viewed as commodities, as property. If anything, animal welfare reforms just further perpetuates the property status of animals, and as long as animals are considered pieces of property, the interests of the owner will always override the interests of the property.

Even if animal welfare reforms and “humane” animal products were not problematic on an ethical level, from a practical standpoint, the concept is deeply flawed. If everyone wanted to keep eating the same amount of animal products that they do but only “humane” there would not be enough room to farm the amount of animals needed to keep up with the demand. The whole reason factory farms came around was for the growing demand of animal products and the little space there was to farm them. “Free-range” and “humane” animal products simply cannot sustain themselves on a large-scale.

Animal welfare reforms only alleviate the symptoms; going vegan and educating others about veganism strikes at the roots of the problem of speciesism and animal use.

Taking Social Justice Seriously

Some may claim that they cannot possibly worry about animals while so many humans are suffering, and that until human problems are taken care of, animals will have to wait. Veganism, with a bit of effort in research and education, is simple and takes little time away from one’s daily life. Someone is able to still help humans as a vegan.

Veganism is not just a diet, but a moral obligation if we wish to strike at the roots of speciesism in all its forms. Veganism is a moral imperative if we wish to bring an end to an injustice to all animals. Veganism is the very least that we owe to the thinking, feeling creatures with whom we share the Earth.

[Christopher Hill]

Before I go on to the subject matter I must say that you have great writing skills, perhaps a few things to touch on would be the refuting the idea that "People were made to eat meet" or that "Plants do not want to be eaten" (Fruit bearing varieties in particular evolved to be eaten and depend on being eaten to propagate) maybe some other retorts regarding how we actually lack true canine teeth and our digestive system is not optimized for eating meat if you wanted to add in some scientific arguments.

[khaetlyn]

Before I go on to the subject matter I must say that you have great writing skills, perhaps a few things to touch on would be the refuting the idea that "People were made to eat meet" or that "Plants do not want to be eaten" (Fruit bearing varieties in particular evolved to be eaten and depend on being eaten to propagate) maybe some other retorts regarding how we actually lack true canine teeth and our digestive system is not optimized for eating meat if you wanted to add in some scientific arguments.

Thank you! I've actually applied to a magnet school in my state (South Carolina Governor's School for the Arts and Humanities) to focus on creative writing. If accepted, I will spend my junior and senior years of high school there.

I am currently working on refuting all the arguments I've come across--there are quite a few--in an essay or program all to itself. There are just so many...

Again, thanks.

[JJM 777]

Before I go on to the subject matter I must say that you have great writing skills

Yep the writing is clear and enjoyable, even if I don't agree with all details of this ideological movement.

So I am not a vegan, and have no plans to become one. I understand those people for whom veganism is a protest against painful treatment of animals in the food production business, and whose aim is to cause some economical and political pressure in the market with their (theoretically temporary) boycott of buying animal products. But the idea of viewing animals as beings with such inherent rights that it would be immoral for people to eat them, sounds artificial and unnatural to me. My reasons are these:

- Animals eat each other all the time in the wild. Banning such behaviour from humans ONLY would mean that we treat humans as something special and different from other species (while one of the premises of this ideology is NOT to treat humans as something special and different).

- Where does "animalhood" begin and "sub-animalhood" end? Our immune system kills millions of bacteria every day, just to enable our own survival. The gnat that wants to bite you might be carrying malaria, better kill it before its disease kills you. (Or is it better, according to this ideology?) This ideology would require some (quite artificial) definition of which creatures enjoy the defined "rights", because obviously all fauna cannot enjoy them. And even those creatures that would enjoy the "rights", would enjoy them in the eyes of humans only, but humans would not enjoy these rights in the eyes of other creatures, neither would animals generally enjoy the said rights in the eyes of each other.

Expecting humans to end consumption of animals as food feels like reinventing a purpose for life. In the wild it is sad and painful for the cubs to lose their mother as the hunter-gatherers kill it for food, but in planned agriculture the carefully designed, instant and painless death of an animal separated from others does not cause pain to anyone.

[khaetlyn]

- Animals eat each other all the time in the wild. Banning such behaviour from humans ONLY would mean that we treat humans as something special and different from other species (while one of the premises of this ideology is NOT to treat humans as something special and different).

Animals in the wild eat other animals out of survival while the vast majority of humans only eat animals out of pleasure, tradition, etc. (If a human had to eat animals to survive, I would find this permissible because it is to survive.)

You misunderstood what speciesism means--it means giving greater weight to the interests of one's own species, and lesser weight to the interests of other species. There are many differences between our species and other animal species, and we do not always share the same interests. But if we do share the same interests, there is no justifiable reason for not giving their interests equal consideration.

For example, an African American and a white person both share interest in not getting kicked in the face, and race being an irrelevant characteristic because both persons feel pain exactly the same way, then one must give the African American and white person equal consideration for their interests in not getting kicked in the face. Both the African American and white person don't want to be kicked in the face equally. Just like the African American and the white person share that interests, you and a dog both have interests in not being kicked in the face. Species, like race, is an irrelevant characteristic because both you and the dog feel pain exactly the same way, so one must give you and the dog equal consideration for your interests in not getting kicked in the face. If one had given your interests greater weight simply because you are "one of them" (a human) this would be no different if one had given the white person's interests greater weight simply because they were "one of them," or white person.

This is what speciesism and equal consideration of interests means, not that humans are "special" or "different" because in some cases, our interests don't overlap and our interests are, indeed, "different" from theirs.

- Where does "animalhood" begin and "sub-animalhood" end? Our immune system kills millions of bacteria every day, just to enable our own survival. The gnat that wants to bite you might be carrying malaria, better kill it before its disease kills you. (Or is it better, according to this ideology?) This ideology would require some (quite artificial) definition of which creatures enjoy the defined "rights", because obviously all fauna cannot enjoy them. And even those creatures that would enjoy the "rights", would enjoy them in the eyes of humans only, but humans would not enjoy these rights in the eyes of other creatures, neither would animals generally enjoy the said rights in the eyes of each other.

I already answered this in my essay. The basis for personhood should not be based on criteria such as sex, race, sexual orientation--and as I argued, species is just as arbitrary as the aforementioned categories--nor should personhood be based on the ability to communicate, contribute to society, or respect the rights of others. Since some humans, like infants and the mentally handicapped, cannot recognize others' rights or respect the rights of others, yet we do not withhold rights from them, we cannot withhold rights from animals for the same reasons.

The basis for rights, personhood, or giving someone equal consideration for their interests should be sentience (the ability to feel pain) and not any silly category humans have made up like race, sex, species, etc...This means that rights apply to sentient species, so viruses, bacteria, plants, or the like do not have any real interests to take into consideration because they are not sentient.

As for the gnat scenario...Every day is not a "kill-a-gnat-or-get-malaria" situation. This is similar to the "burning house" situation. Every day, we are not faced with the life or death choice to either save a dog or a baby from a burning building--or in this case, save a bug or get a disease. Indeed, the choice is not between a baby or a dog, or a bug and a disease, but the hot dog or the veggie dog. IF such a situation was ever to occur, though it is highly unlikely, it is obvious that it would be permissible to swat the gnat away, as it would be a matter of survival and not satisfying one's gastronomical preferences.

Expecting humans to end consumption of animals as food feels like reinventing a purpose for life. In the wild it is sad and painful for the cubs to lose their mother as the hunter-gatherers kill it for food, but in planned agriculture the carefully designed, instant and painless death of an animal separated from others does not cause pain to anyone.

The vast majority of humans are not hunter-gatherers like thousands of years ago when they hunted for survival. In fact, most humans who consume animal products do so by going to a grocery store and choosing a packaged product--never having the slightest idea or connection to the animal who was exploited for that product. As stated in my essay, it isn't about the "pain" or "suffering" the animal went through before being killed, but about the fact they are being killed, used, exploited, etc...in the first place, as it further perpetuates their property status.

I think I covered everything. Let me know if I didn't.

[Christopher Hill]

For example, an African American and a white person both share interest in not getting kicked in the face, and race being an irrelevant characteristic because both persons feel pain exactly the same way, then one must give the African American and white person equal consideration for their interests in not getting kicked in the face. Both the African American and white person don't want to be kicked in the face equally. Just like the African American and the white person share that interests, you and a dog both have interests in not being kicked in the face. Species, like race, is an irrelevant characteristic because both you and the dog feel pain exactly the same way, so one must give you and the dog equal consideration for your interests in not getting kicked in the face. If one had given your interests greater weight simply because you are "one of them" (a human) this would be no different if one had given the white person's interests greater weight simply because they were "one of them," or white person.

This is what speciesism and equal consideration of interests means, not that humans are "special" or "different" because in some cases, our interests don't overlap and our interests are, indeed, "different" from theirs.

Simple enough, except that humans do not meet the criteria to be said to have different "races" while differences between species are very much a reality, Still I agree that when both species share the same general goal it is natural to collaborate, This is of course countered by the concept of religion in which one is to assume some divine creator gave man complete control over animal kind to do whatever it liked with it, to murder without remorse, as it was "the will of god" No phrase has been uttered more often for the justification of genocide and murder than that one, so perhaps Dawkins was right in his assumptions here.

Such is the breathtaking speciesism of our Christian-inspired attitudes, the abortion of a single human zygote (most of them are destined to be spontaneously aborted anyway) can arouse more moral solicitude and righteous indignation than the vivisection of any number of intelligent adult chimpanzees! [...] The only reason we can be comfortable with such a double standard is that the intermediates between humans and chimps are all dead.
The vast majority of humans are not hunter-gatherers like thousands of years ago when they hunted for survival. In fact, most humans who consume animal products do so by going to a grocery store and choosing a packaged product--never having the slightest idea or connection to the animal who was exploited for that product. As stated in my essay, it isn't about the "pain" or "suffering" the animal went through before being killed, but about the fact they are being killed, used, exploited, etc...in the first place, as it further perpetuates their property status.

I already answered this in my essay. The basis for personhood should not be based on criteria such as sex, race, sexual orientation--and as I argued, species is just as arbitrary as the aforementioned categories--nor should personhood be based on the ability to communicate, contribute to society, or respect the rights of others. Since some humans, like infants and the mentally handicapped, cannot recognize others' rights or respect the rights of others, yet we do not withhold rights from them, we cannot withhold rights from animals for the same reasons.

Exactly, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" even if an individual is capable of contributing nothing themselves.

The basis for rights, personhood, or giving someone equal consideration for their interests should be sentience (the ability to feel pain) and not any silly category humans have made up like race, sex, species, etc...This means that rights apply to sentient species, so viruses, bacteria, plants, or the like do not have any real interests to take into consideration because they are not sentient.

Again I must say that there is a fair bit of difference between a social construct such as "race" as a basis for rights and "species" which is a valid biological classification applicable to animals (While both Race and Species are  not applicable to humans). This is not to say that these animals do not deserve equal consideration of their rights and so I must commend you even if I cannot agree with all of your positions.

As for the gnat scenario...Every day is not a "kill-a-gnat-or-get-malaria" situation. This is similar to the "burning house" situation. Every day, we are not faced with the life or death choice to either save a dog or a baby from a burning building--or in this case, save a bug or get a disease. Indeed, the choice is not between a baby or a dog, or a bug and a disease, but the hot dog or the veggie dog. IF such a situation was ever to occur, though it is highly unlikely, it is obvious that it would be permissible to swat the gnat away, as it would be a matter of survival and not satisfying one's gastronomical preferences.

True, there are also situations in which I would believe killing would be justified (Of an animal as well as a person) such as cased of self defense or perhaps during a revolutionary action in which you are again protecting yourself and your comrades, The difference between the choices you put forth here (Killing an animal or getting a disease vs eating a hot dog) is akin to (Killing in Self Defense vs Killing for the sake of killing)

[JJM 777]

Animals in the wild eat other animals out of survival while the vast majority of humans only eat animals out of pleasure

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnivore

Some creatures are herbivores, some are carnivores, and some are omnivores eating both. How did they become such? If they evolved, it makes limited sense to canonize a specific moment X in endless history. You decide that from this moment on life shall have a new purpose, which it never had before.

But you have a big political problem there: Humans, like all creatures, are basically hedonists. Meat tastes so good. How many percent of humans are willing to accept veganism as a lifestyle, even 1 percent sounds a lot. Democratic decision-making does not lead to a vegan society.

But if we do share the same interests, there is no justifiable reason for not giving their interests equal consideration.

The fact that most animals don't care about the interests of humans, would in some people's opinion qualify as a "justifiable reason" not to care about those who don't care about us.

Species, like race, is an irrelevant characteristic because both you and the dog feel pain exactly the same way, so one must give you and the dog equal consideration

Dog is an interesting example. Everyone who knows something about dogs, cannot help wondering how happy they can be as proud and faithful servants of a human master. Having a great and mighty master is a matter of pride for domesticated dogs, not much unlike having a great and mighty God to serve and believe in.

Since some humans, like infants and the mentally handicapped, cannot recognize others' rights or respect the rights of others, yet we do not withhold rights from them, we cannot withhold rights from animals for the same reasons.

I am not sure where this leads when the discussion turns to unborn humans yet inside the uterus, or doctors ending treatment of brain-dead people.

viruses, bacteria, plants, or the like do not have any real interests to take into consideration because they are not sentient.

This principle should lead to greater rights for humans than most animals, because humans psychologically need more "rights" than most animals. Humans are aware of more things, and also humans are capable of feeling more severe pain than gnats, for example. Humans psychologically need family and friends, many animals don't.

[Paula Marx]

I am a vegetarian and I support vegetarianism. I am really against any kind of violence, including bullying animals or any kind of life, but that doesn't change the fact humans are superior to animals. All those "animal rights organizations" and things go on my nerves. Come on, animals have no thoughts or feelings! One day PETA or Greenpeace will ask for the animals' right to vote. Isn't that definetly too much? Animals are NOT people and human rights should have an advantage before animals. We live in the human world and we must learn how to take care about each other, to love each other and to stop violence on other human beings - if we include animals in that loving and caring, it's really too much.

[Kevin Nantz]

The vast majority of humans are not hunter-gatherers like thousands of years ago when they hunted for survival. In fact, most humans who consume animal products do so by going to a grocery store and choosing a packaged product--never having the slightest idea or connection to the animal who was exploited for that product. As stated in my essay, it isn't about the "pain" or "suffering" the animal went through before being killed, but about the fact they are being killed, used, exploited, etc...in the first place, as it further perpetuates their property status.

Actually Khaetlyn humans are almost genetic replicas of their Hunter-Gatherer ancestors so humans are genetically made to eat meat as well as vegetables fruits and eggs. Of course humans don't need to eat meat to survive, but as you said previously eating meat is a huge part of tradition, and yes I enjoy eating animals because that is how I grew up and asking me to stop now would be incredibly tough for me as far as my diet goes but it would also be almost impossible for me economically. Being and incredibly busy worker/student in America I get free meals whenever I can, and my family all eat meat, I'm sure my family would be more than happy to be supportive of me being a vegan in a reality they could not afford to feed me separately because my mom as a single Mother is unemployed and it is often a struggle to feed all of her 5 kids who still live at home let alone prepare special meals for just one of them.

I also could not afford to eat out every day because I have incredibly high tuition to pay out of my own pocket, while paying for my own food and entertainment on nothing but 26 hours a week at $7.50 an hour plus an annuity that was left to me. Also the cheapest food you can eat on the go is sadly on the dollar menu at mcdonalds, so to say the least as a worker I get a poor diet.

While under a democratically planned economy the workers as a whole could realize the potential of all the land wasted by livestock and use that area to grow crops that could more efficiently feed the world.

[JJM 777]

Come on, animals have no thoughts or feelings!

Animals have thoughts and feelings. Only plants don't, and that indeed is the difference between "plant" and "animal". If it thinks, it is classified as an animal. If not, it is a plant.

Humans have more thoughts and feelings than any animal. As far as we know.

[Kevin Nantz]

Animals have thoughts and feelings. Only plants don't, and that indeed is the difference between "plant" and "animal". If it thinks, it is classified as an animal. If not, it is a plant.

Humans have more thoughts and feelings than any animal. As far as we know.

that brings to question, is it wrong to eat animals that thinks more than another, I know vegans will say it is wrong to kill an animal period. But to all of you omnivores out there. Why would you eat a cow, but not a dolphin?

[JJM 777]

is it wrong to eat animals that thinks more than another

Wrong or not (how can we define that?), generally the predators are more intelligent than their prey. Lions and tigers are proud and clever, unlike the easily tameable cattle that they hunt.

Why would you eat a cow, but not a dolphin?

Or why would I eat a pig, but not a cat?
I eat pig, because I was raised in Europe and not in Middle East.
The mere idea of eating a cat or dog is detestable for me, because I was raised in Europe and not in Far East.
The salami package says that it "periodically contains horse's meat". It doesn't bother me, but it makes some people feel uncomfortable.
I would certainly refuse to eat whale or dolphin, because of their endangered status as species in the wild.
I don't eat worms, grasshoppers or ants, because I was not raised by aboriginal African tribes.

Apart from such matters of feelings, there are alleged health issues related to eating the meat of various animals. Nutritionists generally recommend eating some meat and fish, nearly daily. Religious Jews propagate against the alleged disadvantages of eating meat and milk on the same meal, or eating any pork, or eating "anything what lives in the sea but doesn't have fins", such as shrimps and octopussy for example.

[Kevin Nantz]

is it wrong to eat animals that thinks more than another

Wrong or not (how can we define that?), generally the predators are more intelligent than their prey. Lions and tigers are proud and clever, unlike the easily tameable cattle that they hunt.

Why would you eat a cow, but not a dolphin?

Or why would I eat a pig, but not a cat?
I eat pig, because I was raised in Europe and not in Middle East.

The way we are brought up often reflect how we choose our diet, or how our diet is chosen for us. And becoming a Vegan very possibly has to do with a epiphany, such as seeing veal being raised on a farm. Personally I've never had veal because my mom took me to see veal and told me it was bad to eat veal, so I feel like im disobeying my mother everytime im tempted to purchase it on a menu. Because my environment told me veal is bad.

[Christopher Hill]

I have been largely uncritical of your essay but you seem to be unhappy with it and so I will give my views a bit.

As you will see, Marx actually went very deep in to the concept of "Species-being" (Human-Nature, or Species-Nature) and goes in some length in to the ways humans are the same and different from animals, in some ways I see it as showing more similarities than differences.

It is true that animals also produce. They build nests and dwellings, like the bee, the beaver, the ant, etc. But they produce only their own immediate needs or those of their young; they produce only when immediate physical need compels them to do so, while man produces even when he is free from physical need and truly produces only in freedom from such need; they produce only themselves, while man reproduces the whole of nature; their products belong immediately to their physical bodies, while man freely confronts his own product. Animals produce only according to the standards and needs of the species to which they belong, while man is capable of producing according to the standards of every species and of applying to each object its inherent standard; hence, man also produces in accordance with the laws of beauty.

So..Man creates for the pleasure and experience and for the creation of beauty..While animals create only to survive..

The animal is immediately one with its life activity. It is not distinct from that activity; it is that activity. Man makes his life activity itself an object of his will and consciousness. He has conscious life activity. It is not a determination with which he directly merges. Conscious life activity directly distinguishes man from animal life activity. Only because of that is he a species-being. Or, rather, he is a conscious being – i.e., his own life is an object for him, only because he is a species-being. Only because of that is his activity free activity. Estranged labour reverses the relationship so that man, just because he is a conscious being, makes his life activity, his essential being, a mere means for his existence.

- The difference between Man and Animal is that an Animal's whole life is devoted to self preservation, while humans have greater dreams and desires, but the Alienation of Labor reverses this relationship and makes man on a level with Animals, living only to survive, forgetting all human potential.

A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. At the end of every labour-process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement. He not only effects a change of form in the material on which he works, but he also realises a purpose of his own that gives the law to his modus operandi, and to which he must subordinate his will. And this subordination is no mere momentary act.

So what sets apart Man and Animal in this point of view is Imagination? Do some Animals have Imagination? Could some higher species of Animals perhaps be alienated from their potential just as man is?

[JJM 777]

Visit a zoo in the West, so you will see "alienated from their potential".

Visit a zoo in Middle East or Eastern Europe, and you will probably just want to vomit.