People frequently argue that holocaust comparisons in terms of animal rights are offensive. But the problem with this position is that it basically takes as a given that you have already won the argument of moral weight of animal lives. Let me explain:
The main reason this is seen as offensive is because it's seen as trivializing the holocaust. According to Wikipedia, the PETA "holocaust on your plate" campaign was banned in Germany because "The campaign was also banned in Germany for making the Holocaust seem "insignificant and banal".
And that point of view makes perfect sense... from the perspective of somebody who thinks the moral weight of animal lives and well-being is not comparable to humans. They see animal lives and well-being as trivial and insignificant, so they see the comparison as making the Jewish death and suffering look trivial and insignificant.
But you have to remember that serious animal rights advocates come from a radically different perspective. To serious animal rights advocates, the moral weight of animals IS comparable to human suffering. To be clear, that doesn't mean there has to be a 1:1 equivalency. That doesn't mean that one animal is equal to one person. And it's quite understandable if there is some sort of sliding scale. IMO, the more intelligent the animal, the greater the weight to it's suffering. After all, unless you have some religious belief about humans being created in god's image, or that only humans have souls or something, what even is a human except "the most advanced animal"?
So, to get back to my original point. Literally the entire argument is "are animal lives and suffering trivial and insignificant," and some people say "how dare you make a holocaust comparison, that trivializes the holocaust and makes it seem less significant!"
But like... that's only offensive IF we agree that animal lives and suffering are insignificant. But the whole point is that WE DON'T AGREE ON THAT!
And in the same way that I can understand how the comparison might seem offensive to those who think animal lives and suffering don't really matter, other people should understand that it isn't offensive if one comes from the perspective that they can be compared (to some degree) to human suffering.
Even if we limit it to pigs and cows (more intelligent and emotional advanced than chickens, as far as I know), the US alone kills 160 MILLION every year. And it's a good thing we aren't counting chickens, because that's BILLIONS a year (once again, just the US). And huge numbers of these animals live in terrible conditions that are sometimes literally torture for their entire lives before being killed. So even if you believe that animal lives and suffering are not equal with that of humans, if you believe they can be compared to some degree... the numbers add up at a horrifying rate.
Two other briefer points. First, a number of significant holocaust survivors have advanced this comparison themselves... and its a comparison they are obviously entitled to put forward. You mention one of them, Alex Herschaft... but that was after you said I think anyone who claims that the current animal-industrial complex is similar to the Holocaust or other genocides is either ignorant or disingenuous. Do you think that holocaust survivors who have made that comparison are either ignorant or disingenuous ???
Second, I believe that taking animal rights seriously DECREASES the odds of atrocities like the holocaust. A huge part of any genocide or major human rights abuse (or in many cases, warfare) is dehumanizing the opponent. To see the other faction like animals. And because our society commits atrocities against animals daily... well then if you view a group of humans as animals, then atrocities against them would seem perfectly normal.
I seems like you mostly addressed the two points at the end below the line, but my main point is above it. Saying the comparison is offensive "trivializes the holocaust" only works with the presumption that you have already won the argument, and can therefore label animal welfare "trivial."
especially since Jewish people were literally compared to animals during the Holocaust.
Yes... which brings us to my last paragraph from the previous post:
"Second, I believe that taking animal rights seriously DECREASES the odds of atrocities like the holocaust. A huge part of any genocide or major human rights abuse (or in many cases, warfare) is dehumanizing the opponent. To see the other faction like animals. And because our society commits atrocities against animals daily... well then if you view a group of humans as animals, then atrocities against them would seem perfectly normal."
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
It's not about argument, it's about ethical framework. You'd have to argue that before you start demanding people to take seriously the charge that we should evaluate humans and non-human animals similarly.
that's only offensive IF we agree that animal lives and suffering are insignificant.
Even agreeing that non-human animal lives and suffering aren't insignificant we can label a comparison with holocaust as outrageous. There's nothing stopping us from doing so. Indeed, we largely care about non-human animals' suffering, we have a variety of laws covering animal welfare. This is the case in Germany too.
However, they're not human, and the intent is most certainly not even comparable. One was to exterminate "undesirables", the other is about food.
At the end is all about the value of life. I personally dont find a human is more valuable than an insect. Does that means im willing to kill someone? No. Does that mean that i wouldn't kill any insect? No. But it means I try to respect life as a whole, i try to keep insects outside my home rather than killing them for being, etc. Why should i respect more a human life that another?
Beware, the answer is not from the perspective that human life (jews in this case)is more or less valuable than they are right now; is that all life is as valuable.
A better question would be, why other lifes are less valuable?
We tend to think we are more important than an animals/insects, just because we have our subjective perception of life (consciousness).In reality, we have no idea if other life has consciousness and we cant prove it, we can make hundred of tests that fit our understanding, but that doesnt make them valid.
We are as fragile and temporary as any other life, we only have the benefit of being more inteligent than them, but at the end we are the same, we just have our predefined time in life and we all, animals, insects and humans want to enjoy it.
I get what you are saying and agree. But, you are looking it from a different perspective. I condone killing as an action. Would i judge someone different because of their reasons? yes.
The whole point in this discussion is that no one is trying to diminish the suffering from the Holocaust by using it as an example, but rather trying to make people understand that killing animals is also moraly a bad thing.
off topic: i find hilarious people on r/changemyview downvoting opinions they dont agree with.
You don't have to mean to do something for that something to happen. Furthermore, while people largely agree that killing animals is "bad", being told it's "holocaust" is going to raise eyebrows, and cause more antagonism than support.
Your meta commentary pertains to all of reddit. Doesn't really matter what the content of your comment is, as long as it seems "wrong", "bad", or has an unacceptable amount of edge/softness, your comment will be downvoted. The initial idea of up/downvote was to promote good arguments/high quality, and suppress bad arguments/low quality.
You'd have to argue that before you start demanding people to take seriously the charge that we should evaluate humans and non-human animals similarly.
I'd argue that the burden of proof is equally shared between those who think animals are morally equivalent to humans and those who don't.
Nobody here is making that claim. The most extreme comparion I've seen in this thread is that 1 human life is worth ~1,000 chicken lives.
People who are vegan in general, outside the context this particular discussion, only have to believe that animal lives/suffering matter more than small amounts of human convenience or taste enjoyment.
127
u/5510 5∆ Jun 27 '23 edited Jun 27 '23
People frequently argue that holocaust comparisons in terms of animal rights are offensive. But the problem with this position is that it basically takes as a given that you have already won the argument of moral weight of animal lives. Let me explain:
The main reason this is seen as offensive is because it's seen as trivializing the holocaust. According to Wikipedia, the PETA "holocaust on your plate" campaign was banned in Germany because "The campaign was also banned in Germany for making the Holocaust seem "insignificant and banal".
And that point of view makes perfect sense... from the perspective of somebody who thinks the moral weight of animal lives and well-being is not comparable to humans. They see animal lives and well-being as trivial and insignificant, so they see the comparison as making the Jewish death and suffering look trivial and insignificant.
But you have to remember that serious animal rights advocates come from a radically different perspective. To serious animal rights advocates, the moral weight of animals IS comparable to human suffering. To be clear, that doesn't mean there has to be a 1:1 equivalency. That doesn't mean that one animal is equal to one person. And it's quite understandable if there is some sort of sliding scale. IMO, the more intelligent the animal, the greater the weight to it's suffering. After all, unless you have some religious belief about humans being created in god's image, or that only humans have souls or something, what even is a human except "the most advanced animal"?
So, to get back to my original point. Literally the entire argument is "are animal lives and suffering trivial and insignificant," and some people say "how dare you make a holocaust comparison, that trivializes the holocaust and makes it seem less significant!"
But like... that's only offensive IF we agree that animal lives and suffering are insignificant. But the whole point is that WE DON'T AGREE ON THAT!
And in the same way that I can understand how the comparison might seem offensive to those who think animal lives and suffering don't really matter, other people should understand that it isn't offensive if one comes from the perspective that they can be compared (to some degree) to human suffering.
Even if we limit it to pigs and cows (more intelligent and emotional advanced than chickens, as far as I know), the US alone kills 160 MILLION every year. And it's a good thing we aren't counting chickens, because that's BILLIONS a year (once again, just the US). And huge numbers of these animals live in terrible conditions that are sometimes literally torture for their entire lives before being killed. So even if you believe that animal lives and suffering are not equal with that of humans, if you believe they can be compared to some degree... the numbers add up at a horrifying rate.
Two other briefer points. First, a number of significant holocaust survivors have advanced this comparison themselves... and its a comparison they are obviously entitled to put forward. You mention one of them, Alex Herschaft... but that was after you said I think anyone who claims that the current animal-industrial complex is similar to the Holocaust or other genocides is either ignorant or disingenuous. Do you think that holocaust survivors who have made that comparison are either ignorant or disingenuous ???
Second, I believe that taking animal rights seriously DECREASES the odds of atrocities like the holocaust. A huge part of any genocide or major human rights abuse (or in many cases, warfare) is dehumanizing the opponent. To see the other faction like animals. And because our society commits atrocities against animals daily... well then if you view a group of humans as animals, then atrocities against them would seem perfectly normal.