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 … ).
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…