EverChanging
Well-Known Member
My wife and I recently came to a similar conclusion. While I don't think it is an absolute equivalence (humans first; then other animals), I do recognize that there is a moral inadequacy in the manner in which our society uses -- really abuses -- other animals for food and clothing, and to some extent needlessly (or at least with substantially less "need" than most people, and our society, in general, assert).
I absolutely agree, although I had a very hard time with the "humans first, then other animals" concept until relatively recently. I had decreased the amount of meat I consumed but never gave it up completely. I had a very hard time with taking medications I knew had been researched on animals, too. Some non-human animals, such as chimpanzees, are actually smarter than some infants or severely mentally handicapped humans, so where do we draw the line? Why is the human given more rights than the chimp? What makes humans superior?
I still do not believe that human life is superior to any other kind of life, even plant life. But as someone pointed out to me, humans evolved as we have by sticking together. Placing all other life forms on the same par as other humans might not always be good for the evolution of our kind. Other life forms focus on preserving, mainly, their own kind as well. If a house is burning, a mother, even a vegan, will likely save her child over a puppy. But female dog would probably save her puppy rather than a human.
I am afraid that without this type of instinct, to put one's own species ahead in some ways, the diversity of life cannot be maintained as a whole, especially for those species who must have meat to survive. (There are times when even non-human animals aid humans or even save their lives, however.) I am a college student without much money and still have a lot to learn about vegetarianism, so I have not made that transition yet, but I will. I will never be able to not contribute to non-human animal suffering in some ways -- animals die when we harvest grain, build houses and apartments, create medications, etc., but I would still feel good about contributing to it less. Ah, I think I'm rambling again.
There has been a gross injustice committed, perhaps since the beginning of civilization, with regard to the assertion (and society deference to the assertion) of what is veritably ownership of children by their parents. In our church, the point is made very clearly that being a parent is a responsibility, not a right. Parental "rights" essentially are the rights of the children to be fostered by the people who love them most, and who will care for them the best. Parents should have an easy time demonstrating that they qualify as those "people".
I agree, totally. The way I often see parents treating small children is appalling.
Coincidentally, the last few episodes of Mad Men (a television series on AMC) have highlighted just how much disrespect for children our society sanctioned in the 1960s. I remember the exact sentiment that the television series depicted, and it was indeed despicable. No wonder so many of those children grew up to be the kind of people they grew up to be.
One relative I had in mind who grew up in a very harsh environment grew up to be that way herself, especially to the most young and helpless children she interacted with, not just myself. She did not grow up in a horrible environment, but it was still very punitive, judgmental, and physical punishment and humiliation were common for very trivial matters -- that is what the relative herself tells me, but she seems to think that is the way things are supposed to be. I have to remind myself not to become too judgmental about people like this myself....Our environment is a very large part of who we are, and no one asked to be born into such an environment.