Earlier quoted context omitted.
This resonates with me. It deeply disturbs me that other animals still don’t have rights on parity with humans. I can play devil’s advocate and make the ethical argument that animal lives have more intrinsic value than human lives. For one, they are innately innocent due to their (as we currently understand) more limited capacity for reasoning. This limited reasoning dismisses blame when they do things we see as wron…
As an anti-speciesist vegetarian, I’d like to note that the above viewpoint probably sounds as extreme and incoherent to me as it does to most other people. Parity as regards rights should be based on interests. There is nothing special about life itself. A mouse’s interests are not on par with the interests of a child, and saving the child would generally result in the least amount of suffering. I did my best to tak…
> A mouse’s interests are not on par with the interests of a child
For an anti-speciesist, this is a very anthropocentric and speciesist statement.
I would argue that saving the child would cause greater suffering[0], not only because the human condition unto itself is rife with suffering, but because we have the greatest capacity and demonstrated ability to cause grave harm to all species and to the planet, more so than any other living being.
The voluntary human extinction movement[1] is a very real movement, however ridiculous you find it to be.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffering-focused_ethics#Argum...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Mov...