Is it problematic/speciesist to have a favourite animal?
Is it problematic/speciesist to have a favourite animal?
Note: It's become clear to me that so far the vegan community on Lemmy (unlike Reddit) is lacking and overrun by non-vegans. So please only answer this if you're actually vegan. I'm seeking a vegan perspective on this.
With that out of the way, is it speciesist to have a favourite animal? Many vegans consider themselves dog 🐕 lovers or cat 🐈 lovers ("ailurophiles") first and foremost, aside from animal lovers (who actually respect animals hence their veganism) in general. Others, like Joey Carbstrong, say that pigs 🐖 are their favourite animal and always have been even since before they went vegan; maybe some saw the movie "Babe" and developed an affection for them, for example. It's understandable. And others like cows 🐄 or chicks 🐥 or lambs 🐑 of course.
But as much as it might be a natural thing to gravitate to a certain species of animal, and "favouritise" them, is that still a form of speciesism? Of course if you're not actually exploiting the animals that aren't your favourite then it's only a mental matter. But is it still wrong even just to view them differentially and prefer or hold more love for some species than others? Loving an individual than another makes sense. But would you love one race of people more than other? Do you say "Greek people are my favourite race" (as a non-Greek person, for sake of example)? If not, and if that would be considered racist, then why is it not speciesist to prefer one species over others, even if just mentally?
You're viewing a single thread.
You can call it speciesism if you want, but fish are just not quite as cuddly as cats. So if you like a pet thats cuddly, you will prefer cats over fish and admitting that is in no way problematic.
Equating speciesism with racism also doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Species do exist in nature, they are hard boundaries which animals can breed. Races on the other hand are a made-up concept with no biological basis, used to distinguish between similar-looking groups within a species.
A fish and a cat cannot breed, as they are different species. A british shorthair and a sphynx on the other hand can, as the distinction is entirely artificial.
Racism is the wrong belief that races, like species are a biological concept that can be found in nature.
Speciesism differs from that, because different species do exist. For any two individual animals you can always determine if they belong to the same species, which isn't true for races. Animals of the same species do share traits, while there are differences between animals of different species.
In my opinion, pretending that every living being is the same would be way more problematic than what you call speciesism.
There is no need to believe that every species is the same in order to treat them all as well and as equally as possible.
The point is though, treating them all equally doesn't make any sense because based on their species they have different needs.
Some animals enjoy the company of humans, others do not. Some radiate a calmness that is appealing to some, while others have an enthusiasm that more fits other personalities. So when getting a pet, why would you ignore all that?
Should I get a crocodile as a pet just to treat them all the same? I wouldn't be doing that crocodile any favour, nor myself.
I guess its that old "equality vs equity" debate all over again.
Sorry I missed this comment.
Treating them all as equally well as possible makes sense, to be clear. That means not exploiting or harming any of them unnecessarily.
But treating them in exactly the same way doesn't, since they have different needs and considerations as you point out. I agree with that.
And I'm not saying we should have all animals as pets, in fact due to the suffering it causes I would be wholly against the domestication of any more animals.
But we don't have to treat animals in the same exact ways in order to respect and love them equally, even remotely or conceptually, even just based on the knowledge of them. It does feel strange to me to say "this species is my favourite species". Is it speciesist? I'm not sure. It's definitely not as bad as exploiting species selectively. But it might have some remnant of the views that led to those practices in the first place, potentially. I'm conflicted about it like another vegan said here whose comment was deleted.
I guess that I disagree with the notion that it's bad to feel a certain way. We cannot control how we feel, only how we act.
And frankly its just unrealistic to ask people to love mosquitos just as much as they love cats.
I don't need to love an animal to acknowledge their capability to suffer and to try to avoid causing any suffering to that animal.
I respect your endeavours I guess... regardless of your reasoning
Vegans compare racism and speciesism all the time. And non-vegans are the ones who usually reject the comparison. So, I ask, are you vegan?
All of your talking points are very much what non-vegans and anti-vegans say. So please just be honest and tell me if you're vegan or not.
I'm a vegan, I don't see why any of my points would have me support eating meat or other animal products. Check my comment history if you don't believe me.
Okay I believe you (Not all vegans are the same after all. For example some people call themselves vegan when they're really just eating a plant-based diet, still buy other animal products, or don't have very strong views about animal rights. Not saying that's the case here but when there are fewer vegans in a community, there can be more of that.)
But what confused me is that rather than just answering the question of whether it's speciesist to prefer one animal species over another (even when respecting both of their rights by being vegan), you mostly went on a tangent about rejecting the comparison between racism and speciesism, even though vegans typically stress the fact that both forms of discrimination of individuals are comparable to each other, and it's usually people who are against the vegan movement who try to argue they aren't, and say things like "Considering humans and non-human animals as the same is problematic" (even though that's a strawman since the vegan position acknowledges the differences between species but advocates for moral treatment of all species regardless).
I just don't really understand. Do you for example think that it's wrong to compare immoral treatment of humans to immoral treatment of non-human animals? Because that's the vibe I'm getting.
I went on a "tangent" rather than answering your question, because I don't agree with the underlying assumption.
You asked if it was speciesist to prefer one species over another. By definition it is, thats just what speciesism is defined as. I have an issue with the underlying assumption that speciesism is
a) bad
and
b) the same as racism
I could've just said: "yes, that is indeed speciesist", but that wouldn't have gotten my point across.
Your last paragraph hosently doesn't have anything to do with anything I said. I don't care about morals, but I believe one shouldn't cause any more suffering than necessary, that goes for humans and animals.
You're vegan, yet you don't think speciesism is bad, and you don't care about morals... right... 🤨
Here's an idea: I am a vegan because it is my belief that suffering is bad. I don't need to believe in speciesism and I don't need to follow any moral code for that, it's just the result of very simple ethical reasoning.
And what's with this gatekeeping anyway? Am I not a vegan unless I say and believe exactly what other vegans do? Does deciding to be a vegan, rather than to blindly follow my societies moral code make me any less of a vegan than someone coming from a vegan culture?
Recognising that speciesism is an immoral form of discrimination comparable to other forms like racism is key to animal liberation. So I believe rejecting the comparison is contrary to what veganism actually stands for.