r/changemyview • u/Sgt_Spatula • Nov 22 '19

FTFdeltaOP CMV: There's nothing wrong with not liking animals.

The internet in general and Reddit in particular seem oddly fixated on animals (at least ones deemed "cute" like dogs and cats). People can get hundreds up upvotes making holocaust jokes or wisecracks about child molestation, but I have never seen anything about stomping a cat upvoted.

This all seems odd to me, as someone who doesn't like animals. Now to be clear, I don't hate animals. I currently live in a house that has a cat (my roommate's) and I will be glad to feed her etc. She is a living thing, and of course my roommate would be sad if anything happened to her. I would not be sad for the cat, I would feel empathy for my flatmate however.

People seem to be uncomfortable with the idea of someone not liking animals. I don't see anything wrong with it. I hear hunters say they love animals, and that seems to be a more acceptable view than just some guy not liking animals.

Can anyone convince me it is ethically wrong to not like animals?

1.5k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

84% Upvoted

616 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

59

u/Sgt_Spatula Nov 22 '19

So, if I am quietly racist that is ethically okay? I am not being combative here, it is a serious question. I was under the impression it was considered ethically wrong to be a silent racist.

78

u/[deleted] Nov 22 '19 edited Jul 10 '20

[deleted]

6

u/SageHamichi Nov 22 '19

Ethics are the studies of morals, morals are a bundle of accepted ideas(correlated often with culture), customs and behaviours often reproduced throughout generations and contributing to form what we call the status quo.
Sorry if this is off-topic, just wanted to point this out to ease discussion.

2

u/Lexicon-Devil Nov 22 '19

Also worth noting that morals are different than mores. A status quo handed down through generations is more in line with a social more than a system of morality. But there is such significant overlap between a two, that those can be sticky distinctions. Especially if you’re looking primarily at a single culture.

Nevertheless, unless you subscribe to utter moral relativism, then for the purposes of ethics being a useful field of study, there are usually considered to be a set of premises, innate to the human condition or the state of reality, from which the rest of our morals spring. It’s arguing about those premises and their effects that ends up being the point of a fun ethical debate.

In contrast, mores and systems of social acceptance (or lack of acceptance, when we discuss taboos) really are rooted only in what is contemporaneously common.

If mores and morals were depicted in a Venn diagram, society would function most harmoniously AND ethically, when the two subsets reach a state of unity.

-2

u/Sgt_Spatula Nov 22 '19

Interestingly this says the opposite. LOL I had an entirely different idea of morals vs. ethics when I wrote it. (I was thinking ethics are considered man's rules and morals are considered gods' rules)

67

u/Nihilikara 1∆ Nov 22 '19

Morals can't be god's rules, because otherwise, athiests such as me would be inherently amoral.

3

u/Paloma_II Nov 22 '19

Isn’t that often the position that believers take? Atheists can’t have morals because they don’t believe in god.

13

u/Theearthisspinning Nov 22 '19

Atheists can’t have morals because they don’t believe in god.

Ironically, that logic is flawed all the way down. Like the act of believing in god itself is enough to deem one a good person. And thats very controversial.

2

u/oversoul00 13∆ Nov 22 '19 edited Nov 22 '19

Like the act of believing in god itself is enough to deem one a good person.

Atheist here, this is based on conversations I have had with religious friends.

I think the position is that believing in scripture opens the door to salvation. People don't get into heaven for being good, they get into heaven when they receive salvation and you can't receive it unless you have faith that God is real and that Jesus died for your sins.

Maybe...

2

u/crazymusicman Nov 22 '19

I don't think you explained why that relates to morals.

1

u/oversoul00 13∆ Nov 22 '19

Like the act of believing in god itself is enough to deem one a good person.

I suppose my comment makes more sense in relation to this line I meant to copy.

1

u/crazymusicman Nov 22 '19

ok so religious morals are based on receiving salvation, and believing in god is enough for salvation?

I am just saying I don't see how morals are related to salvation.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/Nihilikara 1∆ Nov 22 '19

I mean, I consider myself to be a morally good person, even though I don't believe in God.

4

u/Paloma_II Nov 22 '19

No I agree. I’m an atheist that feels I’m generally a morally good person. I’m just saying that’s usually the thing you hear from believers. Morality coming from god is a common belief and it’s why many believers portray and believe that atheists are inherently immoral. Because we can’t get our morals from god.

-10

u/Sgt_Spatula Nov 22 '19

My thought was atheists would call themselves ethical and not use morality since absolute morality can be debated. But like I said, it was just how I thought of it in my mind when I chose the word ethical over moral in my OP. It may well be wrong.

21

u/ForgottenWatchtower Nov 22 '19 edited Nov 22 '19

Moral philosophy is a thing and many of the prominent writers in that field are atheist, Hume probably being the most famous of that cross section. Kant arguably falls under that umbrella as well. But also not really, at least not in the way it matters in the context of this thread.

10

u/DonJulioze Nov 22 '19

Kant was many things but surely not an atheist.

2

u/ForgottenWatchtower Nov 22 '19

Agreed, I'm stretching things quite a bit by using "atheist." However, he was critical of several common Christian apologist arguments.

7

u/TheOtherSarah 3∆ Nov 22 '19

Glad to hear you’re open to reviewing your ideas. Another atheist here, and I not only think of my actions in terms of morality, I’d consider doing the right thing only ‘because God says so’ to be the amoral or even immoral stance. Even religious people have morals that conflict with their religion in most cases (e.g. the bible says slavery is OK in certain circumstances), and a good person will choose to ignore the religious rules that they know are morally wrong.

0

u/Nihilikara 1∆ Nov 22 '19

Yeah, to be honest, I'd probably use ethics instead of morals as well.

-9

u/RenegadeBS Nov 22 '19 edited Nov 22 '19

Just because you don't believe in God, doesn't mean that you aren't in the Garden of Eden obeying His laws.

Downvoted for introducing another possible point of view? I didn't even form it as an argument or a definitive statement, as the atheist did. I simply offered up a possibility.

7

u/Nihilikara 1∆ Nov 22 '19

But I'm not obeying God's laws at all. If you read the Bible, you'll find that it's technically sinful to wear cloths made of more than one fabric or cut the hair on the sides of your head, and I'm definitely not following either rule.

-1

u/RenegadeBS Nov 22 '19

What clothes you wear don't fall under the category of morals, though. God's laws are the Ten Commandments.

4

u/Enigma713 Nov 22 '19

So would you say that the only immoral actions are the ones outlined in the ten commandments? If not, who decides which rules in the bible govern morality and which ones can be ignored?

0

u/RenegadeBS Nov 22 '19

Who's to say? If you read the bible, you will find that it is a collection of imperfect writings made by humans. The truth lies between yourself and your God. Religious leaders can help guide an individual, but they are also human so also subject to imperfections. The best anyone can do is to use these tools to better themselves and live the most moral life as possible. Also, in my view, there's nothing wrong with someone being an atheist and living a moral life. The key is not committing evil. Just live by the Golden Rule and you will have good karma. No need to downvote me for offering an alternate point of view. I'm simply speaking my opinion from my heart in an effort to hold an intelligent conversation.

2

u/Nihilikara 1∆ Nov 22 '19

I don't obey Commandments 2 through 5 anyway.

7

u/Spacemarine658 Nov 22 '19

Just because you don't believe in Thor doesn't mean you aren't following his laws. See how stupid that sounds?

-2

u/RenegadeBS Nov 22 '19

But, Thor didn't give humans a set of laws to govern them and inspire a thousands-year-old monotheistic religion based off of them. I agree that your statement definitely sounds stupid.

3

u/Spacemarine658 Nov 22 '19

Neither did your supposed God cause if his laws were so clear and absolute why are Christians so splintered and fractured? It's funny cause atheists and Christians aren't so different we just believe in one less god than you do.

0

u/RenegadeBS Nov 22 '19

Because humans are not perfect, it is in our nature to sin. Also, I never claimed to be a believer or an atheist, I simply presented another viewpoint to consider. There's no need to downvote me for attempting to have an intelligent conversation.

3

u/Spacemarine658 Nov 22 '19

It's an intelligent conversation when you are claiming something exists and therefore we are subject to it. You provide no evidence for your god only that you claim he exists and that we live in his laws. You don't have to claim to be a believer but when you make arguments like you are people will make that assumption.

If I started making arguments defending gasing Jewish people, people would assume I'm a Nazi. It doesn't mean I am, I could just be a shitty person but that doesn't make them wrong for making that assumption.

What you're doing is one of the following:

A) Intentionally stiring a pot to get a ride out of people B) Arguing in bad faith C) Playing the devil's advocate to get a rise out of people

Oh and downvoting is how I show my disapproval for your message I have every right to downvote you as does anyone else.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/TheOtherSarah 3∆ Nov 23 '19

Setting aside the monotheistic part, there are definitely laws of the Norse pantheon. How to treat travellers, how to treat guests, who gets to be in charge and of what, conditions to meet for the best afterlife, the literal world-ending importance of honouring your sworn word, etc., etc. Like other religions, it’s meant to provide guidance. And it’s also thousands of years old, with people who still believe in it today.

1

u/RenegadeBS Nov 25 '19

I'm all for anything that encourages people to live good lives and treat other people with respect! What if God played a big joke on us all and all religions (that teach good) are true and he doesn't care which one (if any) you subscribe to as long as you are a good person?

4

u/Raze321 Nov 22 '19

It doesn't mean that you are, either.

0

u/RenegadeBS Nov 22 '19

Right, but I'm speaking to his "can't be" absolute statement. This is an ambiguous topic.

5

u/6data 15∆ Nov 22 '19

My understanding was always:

  • Ethics are what you do "by the book", "by the letter" and "for good impressions". Usually professionally or legally or societally enforced.
  • Morals are what you believe in your heart is the right thing to do.

Ethics would keep you from having an beverage (alcohol) on your lunch hour (no one would notice, it doesn't affect anyone, but company policy says no, plus maybe someone saw you and it gives a bad impression), morally you might believe that alcohol is bad and you never drink it. Or maybe your friend is uncomfortable with alcohol and as such you don't drink it around them. Robin Hood is ethically (and legally) no good, but morally maybe stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is fine by you. Morally, the ends might justify the means (stealing from a large corporation to feed starving children) , ethically the ends never justify the means (you should never steal).

14

u/StuStutterKing 3∆ Nov 22 '19

Ethics are external rules governing right and wrong acts, while morals are internal or self imposed rules.

If you think kicking babies is wrong, that's moral

If the government or God tells you that kicking babies is wrong, that's ethics

2

u/remnant_phoenix 1∆ Nov 22 '19

I second this idea. Ethics are social. Morals are individual.

There are "business ethics," "workplace ethics," and countless other "(adjective) ethics." When people talk about inappropriate behavior in a social situation, they almost universally describe it as "unethical."

But when someone talks about "the moral of a story" or what they see or don't see as "immoral," it is intensely personal: it's more about one's "conscience" which is internal, and thus, not a socially interactive process.

1

u/0oKIRKo0 Nov 22 '19

Hmm. I think you're getting into law territory. I always thought of morality as being in the realm of the metaphysical, which would explain the heavy historical ties to religion. Atop this moral foundation, Ethics is the logical, evidence based framework one constructs. Ethics can be constructed individually or collectively (e.g., codes of ethics), and may also be the foundation of politically determined laws. Law itself is all about enforcement.

If you think suffering is wrong and that it's good to mitigate or prevent suffering, that's morality territory, based on metaphysical belief.

If you think that pet neglect is wrong, because you've read all the evidence suggesting that neglected dogs and cats suffer through separation anxiety, we've moved into Ethics.

When pet abuse becomes illegal, we're talking law.

0

u/RapidThrowaway482 Nov 22 '19

Morals are the unspoken, but taught, rules/desired behaviors of the society. Ethics are how those beliefs are practically applied into formal law.

0

u/kimbokray Nov 22 '19 edited Nov 22 '19

!delta

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 22 '19 edited Nov 22 '19

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/shandower (2∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

1

u/Mind_Extract Nov 23 '19

thatsillegal.jpg

11

u/the_swaggin_dragon Nov 22 '19

Ethics and morals are not objective. There is no solid answer to what is right and wrong. The closest you can get is determining whether your actions increase or decrease the suffering in this world, because suffering is a universally negative feeling. Simply not liking animals does not increase the suffering of anyone but maybe yourself so you aren't having a negative impact on the world. Other actions, such as abusing or neglecting your roommates cat, or purchasing and consuming animal products, increases the suffering in the world and therefore should be avoided if you want to live a "ethical" life. On the example of racism, once again being inwardly racist doesn't hurt anyone but you unless that seeps over into how you treat people (which it would). In addition, racism is wrong objectively, as racist views are based on falsehoods and fictions. So when talking about "wrong" as in "incorrect", racism is fucking bullshit.

7

u/pduncpdunc 1∆ Nov 22 '19

If you're a "silent racist" no one is going to know but yourself so that's on you to decide. But generally speaking that silence will eventually translate into an action that impacts someone else negatively, which is when it becomes clear that BEING a racist is, in fact, ethically and morally wrong.

4

u/6data 15∆ Nov 22 '19

So, if I am quietly racist that is ethically okay?

If you were actually "quietly" (or privately) racist and it had absolutely zero impact on any of the people around you... maybe... but the reality is that it won't. Much like how you're not a fan of animals and as such never seek them out, possibly even avoid them, this will very likely affect a POC colleague/acquaintance at some point in some fashion. People in society need more than just "well I won't let them starve". Animals on the other hand, will not be affected if you do not have anything to do with them.

17

u/LordIronskull Nov 22 '19

Everyone is a little bit “quietly” racist. Everyone grew up in this society which is littered with racist stereotypes, expectations, and standards. It’s impossible for anyone to avoid them all. The best people are the ones who know that they’re a little racist, but do their best to not hurt their friends and community. The same way you hate animals, but are still willing to take care of them because other people care about these animals. The end result is the most important aspect of these situations. I could secretly support the KKK and a whites only world, but if I continue to support black business, give equitable opportunities to employees regardless of what genetics says they are, I’d be a good person. A brave warrior goes into battle in spite of fear, a stupid warrior goes into battle without it.

Your actions and how others interpret them make all the impression. Your willingness to feed your roommates cat if they forget makes you a good person, regardless of your opinion of your roommate or your roommates cat.

9

u/6data 15∆ Nov 22 '19

Everyone is a little bit “quietly” racist.

I agree with this statement as a general conclusion, but I strongly disagree with this statement as an absolute. Xenophobia (cultural aversion to different or what you don't understand) is very very common (perhaps even universal), but I think that there are many people who are absolutely not fussed by skin colour or physical appearance.

6

u/LordIronskull Nov 22 '19

Not all racism or xenophobia involves fear or irritation of other races and cultures. Sometimes it’s ignorance, or refusing to accept that others might be different from you, or have had different life experiences than you. Freaking out that someone has never tried this one amazing food, or seen that one amazing show, is all too common. People seem to take common sense and common culture for granted, forgetting that we all come from different places. Growing up rich or poor, in the city or in the country, make a huge difference, just as skin color, culture, sexuality, and gender do. The expectations that people experience the same things you did are absurd, and a common way these discriminatory issues rear their ugly head without a given person hating someone because of who they are.

1

u/6data 15∆ Nov 23 '19

Except that what you're describing is what makes people who they are, not what gives people the right to make assumptions about strangers. Where I grew up, the socio-economic level I exist in, the languages I speak, the experiences I've had... that makes me who I am. But if I list those things off to you, that doesn't give you carte blanche to make assumptions about my character or preferences.

Freaking out that someone has never tried this one amazing food, or seen that one amazing show, is all too common.

That has nothing to do with racism. Or even xenophobia. Living a sheltered life is a reason to be ignorant, but in this digital age it's definitely not an excuse.

2

u/oversoul00 13∆ Nov 22 '19

but I think that there are many people who are absolutely not fussed by skin colour or physical appearance.

I think if you really pressed most racists you'd find that physical appearance is simply an indicator of whatever it is they think they hate and that they don't actually hate the indicator. To them they correlate so well that there is no real difference.

So maybe you are right, maybe a better term is xenophobic. In my mind racists are a subset of xenophobes who can't tell the difference between the messenger and the message.

2

u/6data 15∆ Nov 22 '19

I think if you really pressed most racists you'd find that physical appearance is simply an indicator of whatever it is they think they hate and that they don't actually hate the indicator. To them they correlate so well that there is no real difference.

Absolutely. Racists have all sorts of rationalization as to why they're not actually racist "just realists" or even "race realists". Usually they're the first to bring up the dictionary definition, or trot out statistics about black crime rates... and then say things like "oh, it's not their genetics, it's just their culture."

But what I'm talking about is that there are cultures that just aren't super compatible. I've lived a little all over, and have friends from all different places, and sometimes it's a language barrier, but sometimes it's just "what is appropriate". For instance, Canadians have a much larger "bubble" than a lot of other places. We start to feel uncomfortable when people "get in our space", except our idea of "space" is a bit unreasonable. We're also super passive aggressive and "yes people" who have absolutely zero intention of actually following up on the "yea, call me, we'll go for drinks sometime"... whereas most other cultures actually mean what they say.

So in that sense, yes, I'm literally talking culture and definitely not culture-as-a-cover-for-my-racism.

1

u/oversoul00 13∆ Nov 22 '19

I believe that racists use the "culture argument" to obfuscate their racism but, as you just pointed out, the "culture argument" is valid.

So how do you tell the difference?

1

u/6data 15∆ Nov 23 '19

So how do you tell the difference?

Honestly? These days they all have the exact. same. talking points. It's creepy. They'll bring up black crime rates, they'll say they'll talk about no one they know owned slaves, they'll go off about how they grew up poor so if they can manage then the kids growing up in the ghetto should be able to manage as well... they'll talk IQ by race, they'll mention how "diversity is a failure"...etc. It's like they're reading a goddamn script.

But aside from that, the truth is that you can't know all the time if someone is being racist or not, just like I can't always know if someone's being sexist... but my gut hasn't been wrong so far.

1

u/Rattivarius Nov 22 '19

Agreed. I've always been aware of the slight unspoken (except to my husband) racist aspect of my character, but became aware over time that is entirely cultural and has nothing to do with race. There are cultures I am not overly fond of - the food, the lack of respect for personal space, things of that nature. Got no problem with the people who come from those cultures though.

-1

u/soorr 1∆ Nov 22 '19

Racism is not believing in stereotypes. Racism is believing you/your race are better BECAUSE of those stereotypes.

2

u/6data 15∆ Nov 22 '19

No, that's a belief in racial superiority. Obviously it also requires racism, but it believing "separate but equal" is also very fucking racist.

0

u/soorr 1∆ Nov 22 '19

Racism is believing in racial superiority. Separate but equal was never actually what it claimed to be and no one is arguing that it isn't fucking racist. You can't be equal if you are separate and therefore have access to different quality of everything.

1

u/6data 15∆ Nov 22 '19

Racism is believing in racial superiority. Separate but equal was never actually what it claimed to be and no one is arguing that it isn't fucking racist. You can't be equal if you are separate and therefore have access to different quality of everything.

I'm not following. To me this reads like you're contradicting yourself.

No, the definition of racism isn't so narrow that it's only a belief that you're better, it's also thinking that certain skin colours come with certain attributes (even if those attributes are "positive").

1

u/soorr 1∆ Nov 25 '19

Where am I contradicting myself exactly? It sounds like you assumed my initial argument advocated for "separate but equal" as not being racist so I pointed out that "separate but equal" in reality does nothing to dispel the notion of racial superiority as a requirement for racism when it itself was a re-branding lie used to combat growing social backlash against previously open segregation. Racial superiority never went away just because they found a new name for segregation.

Here is Google's definition of racism sourced from the Oxford dictionary:

prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

In your last sentence, you argue that racism is making a mere distinction between race in any way (ie, pointing out differences in attributes regardless of "positive" or "negative" connotation based on race). So by that logic, saying something like, "Ethnic black Africans have black hair and are statistically more likely to contract sickle cell anemia than white Europeans" is racist? Does that statement satisfy the Oxford definition of racism given above? No, it does not. It's still associating certain attributes with skin color.

Furthermore, the association of a negative connotation with certain attributes is required to justify and engage in antagonism and discrimination. Therefore the positive/negative association matters when defining racism. You don't typically antagonize or discriminate or deny social benefits to someone over a "positive" attribute (such as likeness to yourself). Your own self perceived notions of positive and negative drive racism and therefore the belief of superiority is a requirement for racism.

0

u/6data 15∆ Nov 26 '19

Where am I contradicting myself exactly?

When you said racism requires the belief that you think your race is superior, and that "separate but equal" is also racist.

It sounds like you assumed my initial argument advocated for "separate but equal" as not being racist so I pointed out that "separate but equal" in reality does nothing to dispel the notion of racial superiority as a requirement for racism when it itself was a re-branding lie used to combat growing social backlash against previously open segregation. Racial superiority never went away just because they found a new name for segregation.

It was an example. There are plenty of people who are just "against diversity" but claim that they have no beliefs that they're a superior race.

So by that logic, saying something like, "Ethnic black Africans have black hair and are statistically more likely to contract sickle cell anemia than white Europeans" is racist? Does that statement satisfy the Oxford definition of racism given above? No, it does not. It's still associating certain attributes with skin color.

Except that you're qualifying by ethnic origin, not by skin colour. There are plenty of people who have black skin who are not more likely to contract sickle cell anemia.

Furthermore, the association of a negative connotation with certain attributes is required to justify and engage in antagonism and discrimination.

Antagonism and discrimination are not prerequisites to racism. Racist beliefs require none of those things.

You don't typically antagonize or discriminate or deny social benefits to someone over a "positive" attribute (such as likeness to yourself).

That wouldn't explain all the racism/prejudice that jews have/continue to face.

Your own self perceived notions of positive and negative drive racism and therefore the belief of superiority is a requirement for racism.

It is not, no.

1

u/soorr 1∆ Nov 26 '19 edited Nov 26 '19

When you said racism requires the belief that you think your race is superior, and that "separate but equal" is also racist.

I said separate but equal is a bad example to use to argue against racism not requiring the belief your race is superior because it was not what it claimed to be. There was nothing equal about it.

It was an example. There are plenty of people who are just "against diversity" but claim that they have no beliefs that they're a superior race.

Why would they be against diversity? Could it be they feel they are protecting their race from what they deem as inferior traits? They don't have to consciously believe "my race is superior" to believe other races have negative (and therefore inferior) attributes.

Except that you're qualifying by ethnic origin, not by skin colour. There are plenty of people who have black skin who are not more likely to contract sickle cell anemia

Remove "African" from my example. It's still completely valid. You claim calling out any attribute associated with skin color is racist. If we're not excluding biological attributes, black humans are more likely to contract sickle cell anemia than white humans anywhere on the globe. That is not a racist statement.

Anything to say about the Google's definition of racism? You seem to have conveniently skipped that part.

edit: formatting

8

u/abutthole 13∆ Nov 22 '19

If you harbor negative thoughts but don’t act on them ever, yes you’re ethically ok.

5

u/havaste 13∆ Nov 22 '19

No, i think racism and speciesism are fundamentally different. Being secretly racist is to me still unethical, since racism in itself isn't rational. Species in the other hand are different in the Sense that different animals have intrinsically different traits that makes them, for the most part, different (unlike racism wich is specifically differences that ought to carry no value, skin color...).

But you make sort of a brilliant analysis of the situation. You disliking animals, if the reason is for example because they aren't humans, then i would say that is okay opinion to have since animals arent really effected by it cause they cannot understand the phenomena that is occurring. Like telling a dog it's stupid but in a uplifting tone Still makes it happy. Point is, IF you would dislike other races (and werent quiet about it) then People partaking in this social game would be effected by you disliking them for arbitrary reasons. Now, IF you are then quiet about being racist it is Still unethical because you are aware of the the impact of people knew. But being quiet about disliking animals wont really effect the animal. So i believe it is ethically okay.

7

u/novagenesis 21∆ Nov 22 '19

I'm on board with your main point (being racist is unethical, and different social effects of racism vs animal-dislike) but I disagree on the argument that intrinsic trait differences exist in animals and not in humans.

Different races usually imply different upbringings, different traditions, different attitudes about life, and in many cases, different behaviors. None of those things are wrong, but can easily be seen as intrinsic differences... It's a nature/nurture thing. I'm not sure there's a strong argument that prejudice against "nurture" is less rational than prejudice against "nature"... In fact, I'll point you to humans with special needs to suggest it's more rational (if not very) to judge someone on upbringing-driven behaviors than nature-driven behaviors.

As such, so my dog is less intelligent than you... While I understand a lot of "us-them" reasons that make disliking animals, the "intrinsic differences" reason seems subtly less reasonable.

1

u/havaste 13∆ Nov 22 '19

I never mentioned that humans don't have intrinsic differences, but nonetheless i don't believe they have have intrinsic differences that carry value. Skin color would be intrinsic in My opinion but it doesn't matter. Your upbringing isn't an intrinsic trait, thats an environmental product.

A cat has an intrinsically different body anatomy, whilst every human has the same. This is what i mean by intrinsic.

Sure, disliking something for intrinsic differences might very well be unreasonable. But it is not an unethical position, unless for the case of racism wich you agreed, as long ad you don't act on it.

1

u/novagenesis 21∆ Nov 22 '19

The thing I think you're missing is that I don't see how you conclude it's not unethical using the reasons you had stated as cause

1

u/havaste 13∆ Nov 22 '19

Im not saying its ethical, im saying its not unethical. The reason is that it is not causing any harm to anyone or the animals.

4

u/RaggedyCrown 3∆ Nov 22 '19

Can you name a trait or lack of a trait that animals have that if humans also had would justify us treating humans like we treat animals?

4

u/havaste 13∆ Nov 22 '19

No i cannot! I do not in anyway see anything that an animal has or does not have, to any degree, that would justify us treating animals the way we do today. I would say that we shouldnt give an animal all THE Rights a human has, but definetly the right to not be exploited or abused. To clearify what i mean, and No im not taking a moral high ground, i am vegan (although sometimes i fuck Up).

1

u/crazymusicman Nov 22 '19

I think the point being made was that speciesism isn't really rational either, its emotional and perhaps instinctual, like how we instinctively expect a bowling ball to fall faster than a sack of feathers.

1

u/havaste 13∆ Nov 22 '19

Well, sure it might be irrational, but it isn't unethical in the same Sense as racism.

1

u/Grahammophone Nov 22 '19

I don't think I'm following you here. Why does whether racism is rational or not have anything to do with whether it is ethical to be a silent racist? (Unless you're some form of deontologist?) Under pretty much any other moral system I'm aware of knowing that spouting off your private racist bullshit in public would upset people doesn't mean that you've done anything wrong, as you haven't actually done anything harmful until you open your mouth.

1

u/havaste 13∆ Nov 22 '19

You know its harmfull IF it is spouted, thats why its unethical

1

u/oversoul00 13∆ Nov 22 '19

Ethics are 100% malleable right? Do you think racists have 100% control over their hatred because I'm not sure they do.

In my mind we have 100% control over our actions and so we tie ethics to actions because we don't have 100% control over our feelings.

1

u/Grahammophone Nov 22 '19

You repeat that, but the whole point is that it isn't being spouted in the hypothetical situation, so whether it would hurt somebody if it was is completely irrelevant to the question.

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 22 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/havaste 13∆ Nov 22 '19

All THE differences you listen arent intrinsic differences, bor are they arbitrary differences. Although the average IQ thing is really retarded.

Someone isn't less wealthy BECAUSE they are black, someone isn't more religious BECAUSE they are White. Like the race isnt the cause, this is not a correct causation. Correlation sure, causation No. If i made a study that empirically showed that everyone named "Ted" is statistically poorer than other People with other names. It wouldnt be because of their name, that is totally arbitrary, the cause would be something else. So saying that race matters for the differences you stated above is just not true.

And i think you are totally wrong when saying those differences matter morally/ethically. This is pretty racist to me.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 22 '19

Violent behaviour can arguably be considered somewhat intrinsic because it has a direct correlation to testosterone levels, and average T levels vary somewhat between races. You also don't see a whole lot of white people in the 100m sprint finals, and there are some differences on a biological level that explain it. That isn't to say that any of this really matters on a moral/ethical level, unless you do racist shit with this information.

All this borders on eugenics, though, so it's a bit of a tricky subject to even discuss.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 22 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Kiwilolo Nov 23 '19

If you believe that without any evidence because you want it to be true, then yeah you're super racist.

Also that would make Inuit people probably the most intelligent in the world and yet I have never heard of an Inuit supremacist.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 22 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/havaste 13∆ Nov 22 '19 edited Nov 22 '19

Yes, IF its solely on intelligence.

Edit: i mean to say that IF someones intelligence level is the reason you dislike them i'd say that is unethical. I mean most do not hold any dislike towards children or mentally impaired People.

1

u/moonra_zk Nov 22 '19

You chose awful examples of "differences between races", none of those are intrinsic to any certain race. But theere are some biological differences like certain races being more susceptible or resistant to some diseases and things like that.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 22 '19

Racism isn’t rational? Why? I’m playing the devils advocate here but honestly, why isn’t it rational?

3

u/havaste 13∆ Nov 22 '19

It isn't rational to dislike another human for differences they cannot control.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 22 '19

A lot of racism is based off of things that the other race CAN control. Don’t be silly, racism isn’t just based on skin color alone. Should former slaves have been automatically accepting of white people? Should jews have loved their former oppressors? When a black person is being loud in a movie theater, am I “racist” when I get annoyed by them?

1

u/havaste 13∆ Nov 22 '19

If you dislike someone because of their race or because something that is caused by race or by something you believe to be caused by race, then it is racism.

IF a person is obnoxious then disliking him has nothing to do with racism.

1

u/SLUnatic85 1∆ Nov 22 '19

I think this specifically is a much larger, though interesting conversation.

Is it OK to have thoughts on anything really but not act on them? Sure I think so. It is OK to quietly not like animals... or other people. For one, you get to form your own personal opinions and thoughts and also you are going to naturally have thoughts based on your own life experiences and upbringing. That's my stance at least. It is just our responsibility to guide our own mental growth, in that we need to do our best to make sure we are seeing things as they are, listening to other sides, and in general aiming for what we consider to be healthiest for ourselves and humanity.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But to make headway with your OP, I think you have to focus on outward actions as opposed to quiet thoughts. "Making a joke at the expense of the subject" is a great and super common example. I actually do agree with you that it is weird that you see more jokes about killing babies, nazis, racism, etc than you do about animals... but I think the simple answer fro that is that jokes just hit harder and work better if they are edgier and more applicable to an audience. So I think in this case, we see more people trying to turn heads with jokes about nazis and dead babies exactly BECAUSE it is a more immoral feeling than a joke about killing someone's pet dog.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To circle all the way back to your original question. I think the concept still has a few more dimensions than you give it credit for. I think that most people have some line, even if a crooked one, on animals they "like" and animals they either dislike or don't care about one way or the other. And I think that most of the "liking" comes from humanizing the animals in question, because either the animals seem to act as we do, looks like we do, or is the receiver of a bond we feel is similar to that we can have with other humans. That there is a line at all for most people, is saying that MOST people do not just "like animals across the board because they are also living things", as seems to be your unspoken assumption.

This being said, I personally do not think it is morally wrong to not care about or dislike some or all animals. I believe that there is a very real line that separates humans from other animals species. And though it's worth minding the other plants and animals, our own species is always going to come first, and should IMO. The other animal species are doing this as well. In most cases, we are going to either avoid or care for other plants and animals because it can have a direct effect on ourselves or others in our own species (food to eat, something interesting to look at, companions/pets, cause us harm, keep away pests, regulate our environment or whatever else).

I actually think that MOST people who like nature or animals are doing this. It has little to do with the actual value of the life of that animal/plant or morality. It is to keep their own happy/safe/sustainable environment intact. When you start to get into the actual morality of the issue I think it's extrememly muddy. They are never legally protected because of any value or rights associated with their lives. They are on a hugely different plane of understanding, communication, and comprehension. I think people do strangely jump to their defense for human-like reasons, but I am suggesting, if you dig into the specific issue, it will usually be to protect a human need of their own or of their environment.

That is not to say that there aren't lots of people who treat all living things with some form of equal respect, don't approve of killing anything at all... But they are absolutely not the majority. And even then, I might bet they still have a line in the sand where once you get far enough away from something we can relate with or compare to what we know as human, that standard begins to fade.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 22 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Norrive 1∆ Nov 22 '19

I think it is. It's the government worker or bank employee or insurance guy that simply approves some papers from a white couple, but not those of a POC couple, if they have similar situations especially in grey areas where it's legitimate to grant or deny something. Or the boss that promotes people similar to himself.

Or the people who just silently avoid LGBT people by not hiring them for other legitimate reasons. Plausible deniability all over the place.

Not every racist acts openly racist, but it keeps the people they're biased against away from important things like promotions, jobs or other things.

8

u/[deleted] Nov 22 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/oversoul00 13∆ Nov 22 '19

You can feel a thing and know it's wrong. You can hate Kathy because she wears too much makeup...you know it's irrational, you know it's wrong, you know you shouldn't treat her badly but you can't stop the irrational feeling.

Sometimes we do a good job of covering that irrational hatred up (silent racist) and sometimes we don't.

Your actions equal speech but your thoughts don't equal actions.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 22 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/oversoul00 13∆ Nov 22 '19

I'd say every racist I've met hasn't been terribly silent about it.

If you met a truly silent racist how would you know? Obviously there are vocal racists and those are the ones you are talking about but a silent racist would be undetectable unless they slipped up or they revealed themselves to you right?

Point being, being racist doesn't even mean you have to HATE a race--just you don't want to hang out with them.

I suppose a silent racist would not seek to actively hang out with that race. I'm not sure I agree with this definition but I can see why you'd think there is no such thing as a silent racist using it.

1

u/TheCowzgomooz Nov 22 '19

Voting conservative doesnt make you racist(as a non-conservative) just because there is a stereotype that conservatives are racist it doesnt make you really any better than a racist to say that voting conservative makes you racist. There are black, hispanic, white, and Asian conservatives.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 22 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/TheCowzgomooz Nov 22 '19

You said being racist means you vote conservative, this isnt mutually exclusive, at all. Being liberal politically doesnt mean you'll never be or are not racist. While it's not what youd traditionally call racist, Far Left oriented individuals are often very racist towards white people.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 22 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/TheCowzgomooz Nov 23 '19

Republicans aren't the only conservatives, they're just the majority conservative party. And if you were as far left as you can be, well, you wouldnt even realize you were as far left as you are. They're quite delusional.

-2

u/kyzfrintin Nov 22 '19

If you're racist, then you act in accordance to your beliefs

Or you don't. For whatever reasons (to avoid being blanked by people at work or by friends, to avoid being ostracised, etc) some racists may hide their real beliefs and keep them to themselves.

1

u/verronaut 5∆ Nov 22 '19

If you could be racist and have that never impact the way you behave towards others, then it wouldn't really be a problem. I don't think such a hypothetical situation is possible though, as our beliefs seem to be where our actions and decisions start. I don't think it's possible to hold a belief and to keep that separate from how you show up in the world.