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 : ).

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:

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” ( , 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. (

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.

Boycott all forms of speciesist exploitation …

I am clearly against KFC, cos I am a vegan.

Here is a new (I guess?) campaign by Greenpeace against them:

What about the birds that kfc massmurders? If we are trying to mend something, we should not stop at the hardest part of the problem, I believe.

Fragment … thoughts on what we think are “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.


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.

Never rebut an enlightened anthropos – how dare you!

Why it is amazing how Animal Rights sets ITSELF on the right fundament. No question that it does exactly that, Animal Rights is a story, dynamic in itself.

However some birthhelpers who are perhaps a couple of eons too late are fighting for their new inventions of the wheel notwithstanding. Ok, what I’m talking about is the question of the futile fight of humans against their own perpetually continued ANTHROPOCENTRISM.

A lot of focus is currently set by the AR community on just that impotant question, which is good and a thing to do overdue because it helps you see reality clearer. Reality about the political implications of Animal Rights for Human Rights and Earth Rights mostly, I believe.

But what exactly is anthropocentrism?

Also … Why is a term chosen that strictly seems to omit the animal nature connection as the KEY point and only focuses on the human towards animal relation in a critical way though. What about that, what completely stands out of the reach of us the anthropos??? Ok, so we see the question at stake here is the perspective, we want to avoid looking at the world from a strictly homocentric viewpoint. But how far do we have to go with that.

I was recently criticised for criticising an AR advocate who is against anthropocentrism and who claims that Animal Rights find a reasonable argument in the similarities between beings – humans and nonhuman animals that is. This is an old string of argumentation when animal acvocacy issues are being discussed. But: do we want to land at comparative studies where we check one brain against the other to find out how much rights you should be entitled to be granted? Well, the amount of speciesism in the enlightened field of AR advocates is just plain tiresome. I just stop this rant at this point and ask you to continue it on your own behalf if you will.

An end to philosophical validity can lie in what we perceive to be reality

The human continuum with its cultural values is not necessarily one, and can’t necessarily be unified with its diverseness.

Every individual has the right to hold her or his own views.

Thus I can be for Animal Rights INASMUCH as I can be for Human Rights, for example.

No philosophical school can propose me their argumentation as valid IF it asks me to see nonhuman animals other than I see them now as an Animal Rights person.

Philosophy should stay out of attributing different “life forms” with their labels of value or meaning.

Otherwise philosophy becomes as bad as how religions function – as doctrines based on belief. Homoncentrists believe that nonhuman animal life matters less than human life,  and they believe that the world relevant to nonhuman animals and the systems meaningful to nonhuman animals life must not be regarded as a complete world in its own rights in their own terms.

universities – ‘institutionalized’ thinking

Universities – ‘institutionalized’ thinking

Why criticize universities, they are the only real location where you can develop your free thinking together with others on an intelligent and sensible plane … ???

The reality of universities is more than an ambiguous one. Hanging between reasonable discourse and hierarchical oppression. Language, logics, proof, deduction, induction, theories, argumentation, discussions cloak so many truths unspoken of.

Without the noble and legitimate dress

a naked truth glimpses through, that seeks to escape another type of truth. One that you can only find in the nightlight, within the space inbetween being and notbeing.

Animal Rights: why there is a similar concern for establishing them alongside human rights

Hello friend: if you read this post or look at it, make sure you have a look and this tumblr entry too. Please talk with your friends about the atrocities of animal sacrifices,be they for religious craziness or for whatever …

Animal Rights: why there is a similar concern for establishing them alongside human rights

What do you feel are your rights dependent upon? The first instance when you learn about how important it is that you have rights is as a child. If you don’t have rights, anybody might marginalize you because you are weaker than them. Other humans can be in that negative sense the “stronger” ones, that they can potentially just violate the integrity of your individuality completely.

Your rights depend on the basis that the social context amongst which you live shows respect towards you, and accepts that you are weaker in some sense. Additionally the social context around you must leave you the space to “fulfil yourself” to a meaningful (for yourself) and reasonable extent.

Rights have basic social patterns which they require, in order to function “organically” almost. And even more, rights require in their social context and embedding a broader frame of fundamentals. Within this “frame of fundamentals” you will find the entire environmental contexts – nonhuman animals included at the forefront.

The environment is not something passive that is born out of causalities that started off with a big bang universe theory … and nonhuman animals are not the biological instinct bearers as the natural scientists might want to explain them in an oversimplified yet extraordinarily body-centred way. When we make assumptions about what is important in the assumed “instinctual life of an animal”, we just put our assumptions about the animal’s priorities right over them like a cloak under which the real animal will not become to be seen. When I understand that some bird species does some specific singing because he/she wants to mate, then I assume that is what is happening, but I should not claim my assumption to be mirroring the truth of the nonhuman animal. That what is not understood, what remains a world not fully understood by me, can still be a measuring standard in it’s own terms, even if outside my cognitive grasps reach.

Overall, the habitat in which we live is way too complex to be described in solely logical terms, even. On the irrational side yet again, that what we can see in nature is what religions have “sterilized” by setting against natures own (incomprehensive) complexity their single mighty god/divine concepts, as some all inclusive surrogates – with hidden features like a human miracle- producing brain that creates the world and universe and so on. In real life we all have a direct connection to the grandiosity of nature though, that basically totally independent of any prescribed views on it. After all we are part of this universe too. In our singularity. As lonesome single beings.

To come back to where I initially started, animal- and humans rights need each other to go hand in hand, because if we separate our desired rights as superior to what we might only see as the “needs” of animals, then we should ask ourselves: on which planet do we live and with whom are we dealing here? If we will stay and head into a prolonged thinking of us as the centre of the universe, then we will isolate our capacities of thinking and feeling to a perversely narrow circle of ourselves reflecting just what we want to see.