Würden Sie wegen Ihres Veganismus auch auf Gott und Glauben verzichten?

Palang LY

„Macht Euch die Erde untertan“ 1. Mose (1)

Würden Sie wegen Ihres Veganismus auch auf Gott und Glauben verzichten?

Wenn wir Tiere nicht als Produkte, als Ware betrachten, als Besitz mit dem man machen kann was man will, wieso sind wir dann bereit hinzunehmen, dass Tiere auf dem Altar der Religionen oder traditioneller Bräuche geopfert werden? Wir schließen Zirkusse und Pelz aus, obgleich auch sie Bestandteile unserer spezisistischen „Kulturen“ sind. Aber wenn es um den Glauben geht, dann ist uns unser Gott wichtiger als das Recht, das wir nichtmenschlichen Tiere zuteil werden lassen müssten, um als Menschen wirklich gerecht/er zu werden.

Sollten wir nicht von vegan lebenden Menschen erwarten können, dass sie wissen, dass ein Tier nicht nur im Bezug auf Kommerz und Großindustrie verdinglicht und objektifiziert werden darf?

Manche sprechen vom Respekt gegenüber Tieren, der ausreiche um der Tierrechtsfrage gerecht zu werden. Und sie sagen es sei akzeptabel Tiere aus religiösen (sprich aus „geheiligten“) Gründen zu töten, wenn man dem Tier nur ausreichend Respekt gegenüber brächte. Und man soll das Tier, das zum Opfer wird, „human“ Töten. Das ist kein veganer Standpunkt, denn der Veganimus fordert, dass kein Tier zum menschlichen Nutzen eingesetzt werden darf. Die Religion kann hier keine Sonderregelung schaffen, denn es geht im Veganimus um Tiere und nicht um Gott.

Es geht um Lebewesen und das Leben. Wenn ich ein Tier meinen Zwecken unterwerfe, um es zu benutzen, zu verletzen und zu töten, dann lässt sich das nicht mit einer veganen Ethik auf sinnvolle Weise verbinden, auch wenn eine Religion solches von mir fordern möchte.

Manche sagen, das möge schon stimmen, aber so schnell könnten wir mit einem Umdenken bei religiös denkenden Menschen nicht rechnen, wenn überhaupt. Wir seien mit der veganen Bewegung ja überhaupt erst am Anfang und Religion und auf ihnen fußende traditionelle Bräuche könne man nicht von heute auf morgen abschaffen.

Solch eine Denkrichtung ist nicht ganz richtig. Denn auch wenn Gesellschaften – die im Westen oder die in der östlichen Hemisphäre gelegene Gesellschaften – bislang weit entfernt davon sind sich in Richtung eines Bewusstseins zu bewegen, dass Tiere auf ethische und affirmative Weise mit einbeschließen würde, nichtsdestotrotz richten sich unsere Vorstellungen über die vegane Lebensweise nicht nach dem „wie es in diesem Moment ist“ oder dem „wie es in der Vergangenheit war“, sondern nach dem „wie es sein sollte“!

Eine Utopie hat es bis hierher geschafft, und eine Utopie kann es, wenn sie nur konsequent durchgeführt wird, auch noch weiter schaffen.

So gravierende Lücken, wie die Inkaufnahme des Tieropfers in Religionen – d. h. rituelle und traditionelle Bräuche unangetastet zu lassen – bergen, außer dem Unrecht das sie aus Tierrechtssicht darstellen, die Gefahr der Verwässerung in sich für die, die meinen dass beides ging: konsequenter Veganismus und das Festhalten an einem Glauben, der das Gehorsam über die Vernunft setzt.

Der Sinn des Veganismus als das bislang effizienteste Mittel um der Tierausbeutung mit Widerstand zu begegnen, erscheint im Kontext von Religiosität fragwürdig, wenn die Religion den Menschen sowieso an die obeste Stelle der Schöpfung setzt. Eine Ergänzug im ethischen Codex wäre dann nowendig, kann in einem religiösen Denksystem aber nicht wirklich vollzogen werden, weil hier ja nur Gott und die von ihm auserkorenen solche gravierenden Entscheidungen über Sein und nicht sein und den Wert des Seins fällen dürfen.

Tiere sind keine Gegenstände, weder zum profanen Handel, noch im “erhabenen” Geiste – weder als Konsumgut, noch für einen Gott dessen menschliche Schöpfung.

(1) „Und Gott segnete sie und sprach zu ihnen: Seid fruchtbar und mehrt euch und füllt die Erde und macht sie euch untertan und herrscht über die Fische im Meer und über die Vögel unter dem Himmel und über alles Getier, das auf Erden kriecht.“
http://bibel-online.net/buch/luther_1912/1_mose/1/ (letzter Zugriff vom 19. Nov. 2012)

From individual to individual

Speciesism and homocentrism are the external manifestations of patterns in thinking that deny animal intelligence, and instead overvalue human intelligence. Humans are mostly behaving contractualist, unpredictable, unreliable, unfair, … and the list could go on in pretty negative terms. I wonder why that is the case, and I think it does not have to be that way.

I think it is possible for a human to be ‘animal intelligent’, to be non-contractualist, predictable, fair, tolerant, loving, … and that list could go on in positive terms. From my experiences with animals I learned about the possibility of ‘animal intelligence’:  The animals I have lived with truly were my best friends.

I think for a person who is truly nonspeciesistic in his/her thoughts and critical about homocentrism  it should be technically possible to really make the shift and start to become a better individual than what humans have per definition been so far, and even prided themselves with.

The time of human intelligence is over for me.

I am glad I defend animal rights from a standpoint of true ‘animal independence’ (of any human paradigm: biology, ethology, philosophy, religion … ).

***

Fragmentary thoughts:

The border around the castle ‘HUMAN’ is the one of scientifical categorizing. Within the castle we claim to be ‘complete’.

BIOLOGICAL HIERARCHISM ALWAYS PUTS HUMAN ‘OBJECTIVITY’ ON TOP OF WHAT IT DENIES THE OTHER SPEICIES: THAT IS ON TOP OF ANIMALS’ OBJECTIVITY

How can absolute objectivity be captured? With which parameters to measure against? Humans’ objectivity claim relies on subjective interests.

Ethical behaviour is one of the components taken out of the frame of an allround objectivity.

Animals get denied for their actions to be viewed as not insinctual.

Subsequently the VALUES of behaviour get ruled out from being within the ethcial scale of social actions between the species, etc.

A term such as ‘ethical’ desribes something that is existent, it’s not an idea in itself – otherwise it would not exist in the correlations…

Common sense as a basis for morality in Animal Rights

Use your sense of justice, when you judge nonhuman animals, use your common sense, when you judge animals.

When natural scientist make findings about how an animal brain works, how animal psychology works, cognition, consciousness, it means they will do 1. invasive research at some point, and 2. they will be using parameters that are strictly homoncentric, meaning the frame of reference they apply moves only within a “human” framework of “objectivity”.

A real Animal Rights revolution would require people to step back from human parameters. A real Animal Rights revolution would mean we as humans are able to face nonhuman animals on the level where we allow them to be different but still respect their untouchable integrity in this natural world that we all live in and are born into.

When we want to give nonhuman animals our definitions, we should as Animal Rights people make sure we don’t impose a worldview onto them and their concerns, that is not theirs (and thus not in THEIR interest). If we can’t accept that animals have their own views of the world, then we deny them real and autonomous subjectivity, and then we deny them personhood in a sense that we should respect.

We don’t need scientific proof and scientific arguments, what we need is to learn to accept common sense as a basis for morality and moral judgment in Animal Rights issues as much as we accept our basic common sense to be enough when we talk about each other or internal human concerns.

 

Vegan for justice

Not the plain awareness that “eating meat is wrong”, but a growing sense of justice makes veganism so attractive to people I think.

Ok this is a fine line, but I believe what makes people want to turn vegan now, is not that “by chances” they have been informed about the atrocities going on in farms and slaughterhouses and that more or less right away turns them into vegetarians and/or vegans. I think it’s rather the growing sense of justice as far as nonhuman animals are concerned and the human relationship towards them, that makes people get the “click” of becoming a vegan.

People find it easier to stand for what they feel and think today, in regards to nonhuman animals.

In the past when you thought it was wrong to eat “meat”, etc. the pressure around a person living in a homocentrist society was so strong that someone was confronted with so many more obstacles than the obstacles a persons meets today in most or at least many contexts and places.

The danger of thinking that solely information would almost automatically create a more enlightened and thus hopefully compassionate people all around us, lays in the often overlooked point that many meat eaters and hunters, for example, etc., are acting fully knowing what they are doing and endorsing their fully aware chosen stances publicly wherever they can as individuals “having something to do with the issue” (they feel being asked for their warped views, so much, I think). The same fanaticism about a practiced carnism and speciesism also goes for some people in the field of arts it has to be noted – a professional field that is in much danger of acting on an ideological plane in society anyway and speciesist art is a sad fact that is often being ignored way too much ( speciesism in art : http://www.farangis.de/blog/category/animalistic-issue ).

What I think is important, is that we don’t underestimate the will and the power of the individual person and society overall to foster a sense of justice in each other once the ice is broken that sealed (one could say) “the lips of humanity” in the past.

the “personal choice” debate and homocentrism

As much as I like the cons of the article:

http://freefromharm.org/food-and-psychology/five-reasons-why-meat-eating-cannot-be-considered-a-personal-choice/

I find the “pros” partly a bit superficially treated.

Point 1. homocentrists and speciesist don’t care really wheather it’s “unnecessary” today to eat flesh. It’s about sacrificing life. Like “my human life is worth more than … “.

Point 2. Again, underlying mechanisms in society are overlooked when we hold back in as much that veganism (or rather not wanting to take part in animal murder in any form) is solely a choice of personal decision. The part of neseccisty on the side of “what human rights lose in a speciesist society” would need to be addressed for instance.

Point 3. It needs to be explained why a nonhuman animal victim isn’t even considered a victim by a speciesist or homocentrist respectively. “No being who prides himself on rationality can continue to support such behaviour.” Exactly that is the problem, they say that just because they are “rational” they are allowed to kill for their taste buds, etc.

Point 4. The destructivity of meat eating has the speciality that it does not care that it destroys the earth AND other humans (partly direclty) too … . To believe in the false cloak of a “humanity” that bases itself on speciesism and homocentrism, means to fall for a dangerous contractualism:

I don’t buy that people really in a basic sense accept even other humans rights. They don’t even accept my human right for example that I consider nonhuman animals to be rights holders as personalities too. So to believe that a person basically has a sense for “rights” but only applies it to her or his group seems wrong to me, BECAUSE this would be ONLY a contractualism, but with the claim for animal rights we are looking for the basic, fundamental rights to life, and earth-/ independent environmental rights, etc.

Point 5. here again it should be highlighted more or at all how animal rights and humans rights are intertwined – in a positive sense.

Otherwise I find it good and always highly due to discuss the issue of rights, in particular and foremostly animals rights and human “personal” choices!

An e-memorial and about people who simply deny that their harboring speciesist attitudes when you confront them …

The grave site of Martin Eduard Staudinger, German Animal Rights advocate and anti-vivisectionist. His grave is on the Hauptfriedhof in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. He shares a grave site with his grandmother Dorothea Staudinger geb. Behrends.

On a memorial site for the people who lie resting on the Hauptfriedhof his grave is mentioned as:
“146 Grabmal für Martin Eduard Staudinger (1842-1910), Kämpfer gegen die Vivisektion, Gewann C 59” (http://www.bomas.de/buecher/brauchitsch-frankfurt.htm , accessed on the 16.08.12)

The inscription on his tombstone reads:’Im unermüdlichen Kampfe gegen die Vivisektion und für die Rechte der Tiere’ = In the untiresome fight against vivisection and for the rights of animals. (http://ar-civet-cat.blogspot.de/2010/07/martin-eduard-staudinger-1842-1910.html)

People that pretend not to know what speciesism is, and how to deal with them?

Honestly I don’t know yet, I am still trying to find ways … . Have you encountered that problem too: you make a somewhat halfwitted and half-conscious speciesist aware about the fact that you disagree with them making speciesist remarks (when you are around or not directly around on social networks maybe. People like to do it more so when an AR person is somewhere close by, so that a direct verbal argument can start, or so that they can try to ridicule your stance face to face and in public)?

Telling someone that you are against speciesism can be dealt with by a speciesist with a form of denial as a “response”, in which the person just assumes not to know what you’re talking about. Partly anybody is aware of speciesism, partly not. A speciesist is likely (at least in these days still) not fully aware of this -ism that humans direct against the nonhuman animal world (that is, speciesism!). A person might be aware about the conscious degradation of nonhuman animals, but might not consider that as a form of oppression that he or she should take politically serious in a considerate form. So we deal with an ethical blindness in many speciesists.

So how can one address them?

Overall it can be reasonable in the most cases to go ahead and still tell someone what you roughly think about the human-nonhuman relation in our societies in general. On the other hand, when you feel that informing that person won’t lead to any useful effect for the cause, you can just try to ignore their ignorance (!) and just “stand for what you stand” – let them know you are a vegan anti-speciesist, but not argue with them -, because your stance (in thought an action) will have all kinds of effects on your environment anyway.

I’m trying both these approaches anyway.

Neo-vegan perspectives – 1 : Why Animal Rights can’t be treated as secondary to Human Rights

Images: Acrylic paintings on canvas by Farangis Yegane : view “OUR OBSERVER

Neo-vegan perspectives – 1
Why Animal Rights can’t be treated as secondary to Human Rights

Let’s assume we can’t overcome human conflicts, and let’s assume we do not want to consider animal rights and environmental issues as ways in which we could also find fundamentally better approaches to conflict solution, because there doesn’t really exist an openness in the viewpoints of the majority to allow new or different perspectives on what’s to be considered as relevant and ‘sense-possessing’.

Animal Rights, even if not considered as touching a sphere of meaningful phenomena, is objectively not a secondary concern.

This is so, since the fact that human persons relegate animal individuals into “irrelevance”, as a sector created for the nature-animal complex, doesn’t hold any factual account for the leakage we can call an obvious one if we look at:

A) the grade of destruction aggravated by any forms of speciesism (and homocentrism respectively)

And B) the essential bond of the human notion of ideal justice in the moral practice lived by societies (idealism) with the natural and the animal world; and the unknown factors reciprocal of nature and animals overall as they display themselves back to human society (the other intelligence – designed by life basically).

Fragment … thoughts on what we think are “atrocities”

Atrocities

We all think we know what atrocities are, and yes we do know – as people, as human beings – what the worst types of atrocities are. However, we fail to acknowledge the full extent of the psychological mindset in humans who cause such actions we consider to be “crimes against humanity” or the murder of an individual or several or many, many human beings.

The type of mindset that likes to destroy others for no reason but for the sake of hatred, is the same type of psyche that picks on any other living being too, in order to rule over it, in life and death.

As humans we have drawn a fence around that what is brutality against the natural world – humans excluded as the only protected and self-declared only species with culture and civilization. And whatever type of atrocities a human does within this spot: “nature”, is ok. We don’t even call that an atrocity then.

Humanity wants to have high moral values, but the basis on which this has to rest is exactly that very basis which destroys moral values. Humanism invented a circle that runs it itself ad absurdum.

Moral values do need a basis, and in reality they have a basis, and that is in the lived relation between human inasmuch and animals. My right as a human, is my right to defend what I perceive to be an animals right inasmuch. So this is my critique about humanism. A.) it fails to be logical as far as ethical reasoning is concerned in general and B.) it won’t allow me to think and act freely as soon as I want to cross the border out of the sterile world of human perspectives and philosophies of life.

Pain

You think you know what segregation means, and what it feels like. But go as a nonhuman animal into any designated human zone (basically every spot in the world), and you know what type of atrocity homocentrism is.

Human are animalcentric in that they focus on a total destructivity towards animals, both willing and unwilling. Animal culture is something human cultures have so much worked against, that being human in itself really is the anti-thesis to animal life. And humans try just so hard to be so very proud of that.

Humans want to emulate animals of prey, but they are just plain humans. We don’t know what the reason culturally is behind the animals of prey hunting other animals. But one thing is for sure, we as humans have another role and potential role. We can either fail and be enemies to the world, or we can see our own role and position made up of own and specific moral participatory values.

I don’t understand why people overall think and act in such highly undifferentiated ways when it comes to their stances on the human-animal relationship, when it comes to thinking about animal life and human life, and life in the universe over all.

However, humans all have to experience their life as own single individual beings, no matter how much they like to or have to hide in the human mass and no matter how much they fail to see the animal individual in what the human world senses to be the plain masses of animal life.

Living life as a single being confronts one with certain inevitable questions of the meaning and the purpose of ones own life. Look at the different meanings people seek out for themselves – all strings run together at a certain spot, and that spot is not to be found in any human-superiorist stratagems.

Can you think without your professor?

Can you think without your professor?

The academic discussion about animal concerns and where they meet human interests, is so detached from the reality of Animal Rights, that the discourse of these kind of animal ethicists seems in the core substance no more but a blast of sophist lapses branching out on a subject matter here only for secondary purposes but not because of Animal Rights themselves. What I think of are the heady discussions lead academically on the subjects of speciesism and anthropocentrism. Things may sound good, yet little way is given to nonhuman Animal Rights terms which would leave space for a nonhuman animal autonomy protecting against the human definition of “self” and “other”.

If we had a similar phenomenon in the academic discussion in regards to Human Rights, we would find ourselves in a futuristic soulless science fiction setting, where humans are no more but calculable sources to serve the interest of a hole.

The terms needed for and relevant to Animal Rights become politically practically useless when taken only to their abstract side and not to the side where a term is instilled with the aspects relating to the practical side of life – life’s daily political questions, that are concerned with environmental questions and the questions relating to Animal Rights concerns.

The worst form of an abstraction would be to go back to point zero and ask: what are Animal Rights again and which animals should have what exact rights. From an Animal Rights standpoint we take Animal Rights as a given ethical imperative and prerequisite. Similar to the understanding of RIGHT in Human Rights, my right is not dependent on any holy issue or on any group’s decision to grant me rights or even on the evolutionary side of being a humanoid. The sheer fact of existence grants the right that will take its own shape in the individual, and of course rights do conflict, and still we should try to live peacefully if we want to or if we can.

Political Animal Rights

So far we haven’t gained as much and enough political momentum as is needed in the inner national and supra-national political settings that constitute themselves with the political party systems, umbrella orgs, lobbyism driven by economical factors, NGOs, philanthropists and yes even grassroots work that we do in our communities directly or over the internet.

To rely on the possibility that academic discussion would take us any further with the needed political momentum for the Animal Rights movement, and how general society perceives the question of Animal Rights and how AR can go together with Human Rights, will be a long and disappointing wait.

Academia coins terms, but these terms become shallow after they go through the entire digestive system of the typical academic brain.

Which terms would we need, however?

We need to fill the space of the Animal Rights discussion basically with the same soul, with the same concern, idea, words, deeds …  such as we apply to our own concerns. Theories have their good, but the practice of life that in the end of the day makes up our political side of life, needs the individual strength of thought and deed.

We are able to talk about our own concerns, and we are also able to talk about the concerns of our fellow animal friends.

to impose a state of being “as if” parasitical

Human societies impose a state of being “as if” parasitical onto nonhuman animals, simply by claiming nature to be a resource “exclusively usable” by humans. Nature is seen as a resource existent to serve human needs and desires, to be exploited. Nature is not regarded as an animal habitat with its animal inhabitants, etc.

By living out this attitude and worldview of: “subject the earth to your will and exploit it to your needs”, nonhuman animals are automatically put either into the position of being degradable and exploitable, subjectable, or they are seen as parasitical, just barely allowed to enter the human garden eden, so one could say.

This is a long subject and it came to my mind quite clearly today … ,so, well I wanted to quickly note it down. I am gonna write more about this angle of homocentrism later, of course.

Homocentrism makes blind to perspectives that don’t serve the “human interest”.