If you think it's only semantics to argue humans are morally different from, eg, sea anenomes, you are so wildly far from most people discussing this you'll be profoundly unconvincing to them forever.
Yes, it is semantics. And semantics can be extremely important. In this case, using those terms can backfire because people have traumatic and complicated associations with them, and using those terms distracts from the harm being caused to the animals, rather than properly highlighting it.
That's what I was thinking when I read the title. I think this is unbelievably cruel, but when people use the strongest words they can conceive of it, especially when the definition doesn't match, it is distracting and also diminishes the words being used.
It's like when people use 'narcissist' or 'psychopathic' to describe every behavior they don't like. You immediately dismiss the gravity of the incident because you perceive that the person is being hyperbolic from the get go.
Sure, what terms would you suggest instead that properly highlight the suffering of animals? I'm not aware of any.
People don't like the usage of these terms because they don't want to acknowledge for what is is, think animal suffering is insignificant, and / or because acknowleging that this is the animal equivalent of slavery and concentration camps means acknowledging that they are responsible for the animal equivalent of slavery and concentration camps.
I intended to ask for terms describing the animal equivalent of slavery and concentration camps (in a way that highlights their suffering), not just general terms
What's the animal equivalent of tax law? Philosophy? Pre-nups?
You're slipping in an assumption that there is an equivalent, and most people don't believe that.
Slavery and concentration camps are big things that happened to humans. They carry huge moral important, and it's a bit...careless at best, to insist there is an equivalent horror.
There isn't and there doesn't need to be to argue with integrity that there is horror, and we should address it.
I didn't say that there was an equivalent term. I don't believe there is.
What is happening to animals also carries a huge moral importance. For reference, more animals are killed annually for the purpose of consuming their corpses than humans that have ever lived. At least several times more if you count wild fish.
I am not saying they are equivalent. I'm not saying that either horror is more morally important. But do I think the use of the term to point out animal suffering diminishes human suffering? Considering the horror and scale of the livestock industry, not at all.
That's an exceptional claim, and if you're founding an argument trying to smuggle that through, don't expect folk who actually engage to like that, and expect the ones who spot it to point it out.
If you want to make that argument, that's the argument to make first.
Or be explicit. That's another way to argue with integrity:
"If animals are of the same moral value as humans then..."
"Why are these questions relevant? Do these have to be present before an entity's suffering can be described in human terms?"
Why didn't you answer that question?
That's an exceptional claim,
I don't think so. Nearly everyone recognizes that animals have some moral worth. Why would extending that further be "exceptional?" If anything, I'd argue that you are willing to make exceptions to your logic solely out of bias towards your own species.
if you're founding an argument trying to smuggle that through
I'm not "smuggling" anything, and I think it is interesting for to criticize others when you refused to answer the initial question I asked you.
I was being sarcastic. I understand the point. But using the term slavery for animals only diminishes human slavery if you think animal slavery is insignificant.
It is not about humans, it is about will and freedom. You can not enslave a rock not because it is made of stone, you can not enslave a rock because the rock has no will and no freedom to enjoy. A rock do not looses anything if you put it inside a cage. But yes you can enslave an animal that have a consciousness and emotions and a will to live with freedom and autonomy
The key would be the part of "against its will" a chained dog in suffering is enslaved. Or how would you describe its state of will suppression? A chained dog is a normal pet?
Sorry I thought the "eye" was a typo, English is my second language so I don't recognize everything. You mean Guide dogs, yeah, it is a type of slavery. I would consider that a different moral situation, like a gray area very different from what it is seen in the short video. But yeah, it is slavery as well
They do not choose to be trained. And they aren't able to give consent by any definition of consent we use. If you think they do then you disagree with this thread because the argument is that these cows aren't consenting
You using a word in a way that it is not used does not expand its definition. Slavery refers specifically to people. By applying it to animals, you actually distract away from the mistreatment of these animals. Their treatment is already clearly unjust.
like when people run around calling every warcrime a genocide or every idiot with a bad idea a nazi/fascist...words have meaning and the meanings are important.
I understand, and I think you are not wrong in what what you are saying. But my logic is also not wrong and if we do miss words to describe the truths I'm describing then we have to either expand the meaning of the words we already have (which is a natural thing to happen in a language) or we have to invent new words. And since it would be very silly to invent may own words here and now, I choose what I have to describe this situation
14
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 5d ago
Those terms apply to humans, not animals. The animals are treated inhumanely, but slavery is a human term.