AC and anthropocentrism

[Borodog]

So you are joking then? You are a few days early.

[latefordinner]

no I'm not joking. I mean the meetings thing I was obviously joking but I'd be happy to create a thread at some point in the future about the possibility (or lack thereof) or the desirability (or lack thereof) a non-anthropocentric socioeconomic system)

however in this thread I was specifically asking about either a moral justification for anthropocentrism or a denial that AC is anthropocentric

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
It also appears that humans are the only self-aware beings in existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have much to add to this thread other than something tangential, but the quoted above is an over-statement. Numerous animals (all mammals) are capable of passing the mirror test. Recent studies have even suggested rats show some level of self-awareness.

I'm not entirely sure it's correct to refer to self-awareness as some kind of discrete measurement; a degree-scale seems much more appropriate.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
no I'm not joking. I mean the meetings thing I was obviously joking but...

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhm... when someone asks you if you're joking and you respond with a joke, WTF do you expect them to think other than that you're joking?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
however in this thread I was specifically asking about either a moral justification for anthropocentrism or a denial that AC is anthropocentric

[/ QUOTE ]

The only non-anthropocentric civilization I know of are (some) of the Native Americans. It seems only fair that if you want to ask the question, you should answer it for your own views first.

[latefordinner]

[ QUOTE ]
The only non-anthropocentric civilization I know of are (some) of the Native Americans. It seems only fair that if you want to ask the question, you should answer it for your own views first.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say rather that nearly all pre-civilized societies were not anthropocentric (and include native american societies in this). I think anthropocentrism is a pretty universal feature of civilization. but this depends on your definition of "civilization" I suppose.

I'm not sure why I am required to both prove that anthropocentrism is immoral and sketch out what a SES that is not antrhopocentric might look like before I can pose a question about the moral basis of anthropocentrism to a group of people that ascribe to it, but If I'm still feeling articulate after I get back from having a few beers I'll write something out.

IRT the joke, I thought the original question, seeing as it touched on a number of important topics in various academic fields would be interpreted as quite serious, whereas obv talking rabbits at meetings was a lame attempt at humor.

so again, the original question is not flippant, but rather an attempt to have a discussion abround what I see as a serious ethical/philosophical issue.

[Brainwalter]

lfd I don't think this is a problem of capitalism as such, it's just that most people besides yourself and other vegans don't have moral qualms about raising and eating/harnessing domestic animals.

[latefordinner]

Brain:

1 - I'm not a vegan.
2 - neither killing nor using animals nec. implies anthropocentrism although some arguments /against/ anthropocentrism may also condemn eating/using animals
3 - Do you have any responses to my original reponse to your post?

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]

2 - neither killing nor using animals nec. implies anthropocentrism although some arguments /against/ anthropocentrism may also condemn eating/using animals

[/ QUOTE ]

you said this:

"Specifically dealing with animals as ownable commodities in the AC worldview,"

Isn't raising to eat, or harnessing an animal exerting ownership? I guess I don't get what your beef (ha!) is if you're not opposed to those things, could you give some examples of things capitalism specifically endorses towards animals that you disapprove of?

I'll go back to the other post now.

[hmkpoker]

Are you looking for a deontological explanation or a consequentialist explanation?

I can't offer deontological reasoning, but from a consequentialist point of view the captivity/ownership of animals makes perfect sense from a human standpoint. Animals have utilitarian value, but can't really engage in voluntary trade. There's very little reason not to own them.

Humans are different because they simply produce more under voluntary conditions than they do under enslavement. Slavery is economically inefficient; you can only work a slave hard enough not to get whipped.

I'm pro-anthropocentrism because, well, I think humans are a lot more useful to society than animals.