RE: Veganism - the other OTHER religion
May 6, 2011 at 2:34 am
(This post was last modified: May 6, 2011 at 2:37 am by Interzone.)
Peter Singer wrote a good article a while back
Very good piece, if anyone actually bothers to read it.
"According to the dominant Western tradition, the natural world exists for the benefit of human beings. God gave human beings dominion over the natural world, and God does not care how we treat it. Human beings are the only morally important members of this world. Nature itself is of no intrinsic value, and the destruction of plants and animals cannot be sinful, unless it leads us to harm human beings."
"It is significant that, at least in the West, all the most philosophically important advocates for animals-Plutarch, Montaigne, Hume, Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Henry Salt, George Bernard Shaw-have been skeptical about religion. Even in recent times, leaders of the animal movement-the late Henry Spira and Ingrid Newkirk (and if it were not too immodest, I would include myself)-have tended to be nonreligious. The organizations that have done the most for animals have been independent of religion. There are exceptions, but-in contrast to many other social issues, like racism, poverty, and peace-no one could claim that religious organizations have been especially prominent in the modern movement to free animals from the misery and suffering that humans inflict upon them."
"as humanists, we should scorn a religion that honors a man like Paul, who -- along with his prejudices against women and homoesxuals -- could ask "Doth God care for oxen?" as if it were obvious that the answer must be negative. Paul's question led Christians to disregard those passages in the Hebrew scriptures that did suggest some compassion for animals. {this view dominated thinking} right up to the middle of the nineteenth century, when Pope Pius IX refused to allow a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to be established in Rome on the grounds that to permit it would imply the false belief that humans have duties toward animals."
Simply clarifying my position, I am not against people eating meat. But it is a fact that the corporate meat industry is both inhumane and wasteful, not only of animals but of resources in general, so it would be mindful of people not to buy from mega-farms (such as Butterball and Tyson). That's about as much "evangelizing" I do.
A lot of secular humanists hold similar positions to mine, and so do a lot of environmental activists (naturally). Derrick Jensen, Kim Stanley Robinson, Daniel Quinn, among others. Now, if you want to paint a broad brush and call us "religious," it's your prerogative, but I hope you can appreciate the irony in that.
Quote:http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/200410--.htm
Very good piece, if anyone actually bothers to read it.
"According to the dominant Western tradition, the natural world exists for the benefit of human beings. God gave human beings dominion over the natural world, and God does not care how we treat it. Human beings are the only morally important members of this world. Nature itself is of no intrinsic value, and the destruction of plants and animals cannot be sinful, unless it leads us to harm human beings."
"It is significant that, at least in the West, all the most philosophically important advocates for animals-Plutarch, Montaigne, Hume, Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Henry Salt, George Bernard Shaw-have been skeptical about religion. Even in recent times, leaders of the animal movement-the late Henry Spira and Ingrid Newkirk (and if it were not too immodest, I would include myself)-have tended to be nonreligious. The organizations that have done the most for animals have been independent of religion. There are exceptions, but-in contrast to many other social issues, like racism, poverty, and peace-no one could claim that religious organizations have been especially prominent in the modern movement to free animals from the misery and suffering that humans inflict upon them."
"as humanists, we should scorn a religion that honors a man like Paul, who -- along with his prejudices against women and homoesxuals -- could ask "Doth God care for oxen?" as if it were obvious that the answer must be negative. Paul's question led Christians to disregard those passages in the Hebrew scriptures that did suggest some compassion for animals. {this view dominated thinking} right up to the middle of the nineteenth century, when Pope Pius IX refused to allow a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to be established in Rome on the grounds that to permit it would imply the false belief that humans have duties toward animals."
Simply clarifying my position, I am not against people eating meat. But it is a fact that the corporate meat industry is both inhumane and wasteful, not only of animals but of resources in general, so it would be mindful of people not to buy from mega-farms (such as Butterball and Tyson). That's about as much "evangelizing" I do.
A lot of secular humanists hold similar positions to mine, and so do a lot of environmental activists (naturally). Derrick Jensen, Kim Stanley Robinson, Daniel Quinn, among others. Now, if you want to paint a broad brush and call us "religious," it's your prerogative, but I hope you can appreciate the irony in that.
