MAY I SPEAK WITH YOU ABOUT ANIMALS?

GREED Q&A

I believe that greed is born from fear and terror, and that people ultimately want to do what's right.

The desire for greed is strong and can lead to conclusions mistaken for truth. But when one wants to do what's right, one must ask; is it really true or is it just an inconsiderate conclusion formed from a selfish desire? And to find out, one must put oneself in the other's shoes -- and head the golden rule; do unto others as you would want them to do unto you.

This should be considered when considering/prepondering whether something is ethical or not.

Question: People are harming and killing other animals, unnecessarily and avoidably, it is pervasive, why don't they stop? don't they know that other animals matter?

Answer: The reason that people are harming and killing other animals unnecessarily, is not because they don’t know that other animals matter, most people know that other animals matter. The reason for most of the killing and violence towards other animals is denial, for personal gain (GREED), and the cultural myths (misinformation) that comes from greed.

As far as the violence towards non-human animals is concerned, in general, the biggest problem at hand is the exploitative raising, breeding and using, and of course killing; because when we know that non-human animals have dignity and inherent value, and know that animal consumption and use is absolutely unnecessary, and continue to do it anyway, what we are doing in fact, is bringing -- extra -- billions of animals into existence just to torture and murder them for our own greedy pleasures, who wouldn't exist otherwise.

For people who have not been socialized with other animals and still don't see this logic and reason, they may need to watch this video [caution though, I personally believe that it is traumatizing to watch, and it may be inappropriate for some viewers.]. Dominion: linked HERE

Q. Some people say that other animals don't matter as much as humans, what do you have to say about that?

A. If it were ever said that humans mattered and that other animals didn’t matter as much --- that humans mattered across the board before the interests of other animals --- or that sometimes other animals mattered (but less than humans) and at other times they didn’t, dependent upon human interests or human interests of them, then that would mean that according to them and in comparison to them that other animals didn’t matter at all. It’s essentially an excuse to be inconsiderate and selfish (greedy). And that would disrespect other animals interests and their autonomy.

And so the inherent mattering in this case has been mistaken for the mattering of a material value for personal gain, but inherent mattering is an either or scenario, either they matter equally in comparison to humans or they don’t matter at all in comparison to humans (Except for hated humans --- perhaps Hitler). The mattering that is mentioned in this case is not that they matter more or less for and in comparison to one's personal benefit. True mattering, inherent dignity, obligates respect, and respect can only be accorded equally, otherwise it’s not respect, it's something else.

Are people, with greedy hopes, attributing their own lack of empathy for other animals to other animals actually mattering (unto themselves) as less? Yes, I believe that this is the case. Could or does that lead to other conclusions/assumptions, such as that other animals lack awareness, have a poor quality consciousness, a kind of foggy experience of sorts? I believe so. To clear up this mistaken attribution, I propose that they need to get their selfish interests towards material value for their own personal gain out of the way and consider the fact that they have no way to conclude the clarity of consciousness of another animal -- it's personal, and that the sole nature of this consciousness of individuals equals equality and warrants "equal" respect. But of coarse, if it were possible, we wouldn’t assume a poor quality consciousness as mattering if it were in a human context.

Q. Wouldn't animal equality lessen human value?

A. Equality is something that already exists, it's not something that is given or taken. Inherent dignity is an inherent value and this inherent value is an immeasurable value, there's no more or less, you either have it or you don't. Inherent worth is the ground of equality. Material value for personal gain is a measurable value.

Q. People often try to assess the value of other animals according to physical attributes and abilities, is that even possible? it seems soo inadequate.

A. THE VALUE OF A LIFE CANNOT BE RECOGNIZED WITH A FOCUS on assessing and judging, things that can be assessed and judged, such as physical attributes or abilities; because the experience of life is a purely nonphysical and personal phenomenon. Therefore the value of a life cannot be assessed and judged. But can only be recognized, as in the other.

When an animal, human or non-human, is being murdered they both fight like hell.

This is why we must rely on logic and reason to find out what’s right (a logic that’s not in service of greed but love).

Q. It seems as if people have been indoctrinated into a culture where violence towards other animals has become habituated, doesn't this mean that they don't think much about it, wouldn't that mean that they're not at fault? How does guilt come into play here?

A. People have been indoctrinated into and misinformed by a culture where violence towards other animals has become habituated. Habituation and distancing may make it easy to not think about and continue killing, but that doesn’t relinquish one from guilt. Neither does being indoctrinated into a violent belief system from childhood.

That, though, of course could make a person a dangerous threat to other animals.

Q. What about people who live in harsh environments where they can't grow enough plants to sustain themselves? What if you were in a situation where it was kill another animal or die of starvation, would it be morally OK?

A. Culpability would be mitigated, but it wouldn't make it OK. If a human shouldn’t kill and eat another human in order to sustain herself in order to survive, neither should she do so to any other animal.

Q. It seems as though it is impossible to avoid all harm, almost everything we do harms individuals, from walking to gardening we harm individuals -- bugs, Is it practicable to be non-speciesist? Does this mean that we are guilty of murder? How far down the rabbit-hole could we go?

A. Practice-ability is about what can be done, the rabbit-hole is fear -- it doesn't exist.

Mother Nature has created a crowded earth where there are individuals of all sizes, giant to tiny. In such a place it would be impossible for a human being to avoid some harms to insects, and still live a decent life. This is Mother Nature's doings -- not ours.

That said many of us live within a deeply speciesist societal structure that may require us to kill individuals such as insects in order to survive within it. In this way we are faced with a similar moral dilemma as it is in an environmental calamity, kill or starve to death scenario.

Q. I have done things in the past in ways that has harmed individuals that I now realize that I could have done in nonharmful ways, how can I forgive myself?

A. As far as it goes for the realization of past shortcomings; forgive yourself for you knew not what you could do better. Change often doesn't happen instantly.

Q. How should we go about animal protections?

A. Culpability should be mitigated according to practicability.

What we (humans in general) need to do is acknowledge (that other animals are not just animated things) and admit that they (non-human animals) are equal (to humans), acknowledge the unnecessary harms (the why), and then ask what to do about the how (of protections).

When people recognize the sole nature of experience, they are recognizing the equality among the consciousnesses of all animals, human and non-human.

We (humans) need to think when we feel the cognitive dissonance of sorts of taking actions that are not congruent with our values, and see the depth of the problem and the who that is involved. And then question and halt the habit/action that is in violation of our values.

How might we go about the legal protections of the potential victims? We need to start paying attention to violations, and the situations in which they occur, discover the solutions and the protections needed, and do what we need to implement them, systematically.

This concludes therefore, that any empathy means equal protections within practicability. Any empathy means that you acknowledge nonhuman animals as self evidently real, and join the consensus that they are individuals that matter, therefore equally.

--- Wayne Martin

THE DECLARATION OF ANIMAL RIGHTS --- By Wayne Martin

--- All animals, human and non-human, deserve nondiscrimination and respect by all those who recognize that there is the possession of a feeling consciousness by the other; and as an extension of this recognition, deserve to be afforded protection from those who don't, within the scope of practicability and natural law. --- Wayne Martin

The exploitative raising, breeding, using and killing of non-human animals is a direct violation of this principle.

Scientists have come to consensus and humans in majority recognize that non-human animals have a feeling consciousness and also know of the practicability of a plant-based diet.

One is guilty and moral culpability is strong when one knowingly and directly participates in the practice of exploitative raising, breeding and killing by enabling it through/by/with their purchases of non-human animal's body parts, unnecessarily (with recognition of the practicability of a plant-based diet).

In my opinion, fear, anger and greed can cause one to dismiss the value (inherent) of another (consciousness) and only see an animated object, despite knowledge to the contrary. I believe that this is one reason that there is so much violence towards non-human animals.

Also human beings pass things down to the next generation, and this violence of animal exploitation and animal consumption has become culturalized -- incentive of course being greed.

Practicability should be weighed in accordance with fairness. Total escape from guilt is an impossibility.

--- Wayne Martin

Continue to: THE PERSON page.

"The reason for most of the violence towards other animals, is DENIAL for personal gain (greed).

[DENIAL of animals for the sake of consuming them]"

Humans recognize (any empathy means that there is a recognition) other animals, and one should not want to harm other animals. And so, if one is ignorant, and the fact of the non-necessity for the consumption of other animals is given, it should be sufficient stimulus for one to investigate the truth of the matter for themselves and end such consumption. That though, is the case, only, if motives of greed are not sought after, assuming that they are capable of investigation or have the ability for logic.

I believe that fear and terror promote Greed, but I also believe that people ultimately want to do what's right. And so, when in the presence of selfish desires, one must refer to the golden rule to know right action. The desire for selfish interests are strong and can lead to conclusions mistaken for truth. But when one wants to do what's right, one must ask; is it really true or is it just an inconsiderate conclusion formed from a selfish desire? And to find out, one must put oneself in the other's shoes -- and head the golden rule; do unto others as you would want them to do unto you.

This (the golden rule) should be considered when considering/prepondering whether something is ethical or not. When considering other animals and you come to a conclusion that gives you permission to do what you want, replace the non-human with a human and or put yourself in the non-human's shoes in order to find out if its ethical or not. Another thing that one can do, for ethical direction, is to ask oneself what would be done if all subjects were human.

Living in, or being part of, a culture of greed where violence is the norm, may make the individual crimes less eye catching, but it doesn't make any harms that is causes less atrocious, or the workings behind them (the cause) any different or the individuals involved less culpable. ---Wayne Martin

What constitutes greed?

Procrastination when it comes to the switching to a plant-based diet, knowing the non-necessity, would be greed.
Ease of switching to a plant-based diet, if not considered for reasons of survival, is for greed. Switching to a plant-based diet is as easy as the offense you take to the murder of animals.
The refusal to investigate fact of the non-necessity of animal products [maintaining unexamined assumptions of necessity when it comes to animal products].
To assume that the amount of empathetic feeling one has for an animal equates to the quality of experience an animal has of his/her life would just be flawed, but to assume that because someone has a "lower quality" consciousness means that they matter less [or not at all in comparison to oneself] would be greed.

Question: People are harming and killing other animals, even though it is unnecessary and avoidable, it is pervasive, why don't they stop? don't they know that other animals matter?

Answer: The reason that people are harming and killing other animals unnecessarily, is not because they don’t know that other animals matter, most people know that other animals matter (when possessing a brain that naturally recognizes animals, it is almost impossible not to know). The reason for most of the killing (I believe, given that animal exploitation kills so many animals) and violence towards other animals, is denial, for personal gain (GREED), and the cultural myths (misinformation) that comes from greed. An example of greed is animal exploitation, such as the consumption of other animals by any means, food, clothing etc..

As far as the violence towards non-human animals is concerned, in general, one of the biggest problems at hand is the exploitative raising, breeding and using, and of course killing; because when we know that non-human animals have dignity and inherent value, and know that animal consumption and use is absolutely unnecessary, and continue to do it anyway, what we are doing in fact, is bringing -- extra -- billions of animals into existence just to torture and murder them for our own greedy pleasures, who wouldn't exist otherwise.

Watch this video. Dominion: linked HERE

Q. Some people say that other animals don't matter as much as humans, what do you have to say about that?

And so the inherent mattering in this case has been mistaken for the mattering of an instrumental value for personal gain, but inherent mattering is an either-or scenario, either they have it or they don't, either they matter equally in comparison to humans or they don’t matter at all in comparison to humans. The mattering that is mentioned in this case is not that they matter more or less for and in comparison to one's personal benefit. True mattering, inherent dignity, obligates respect, and respect can only be accorded equally, otherwise it’s not respect, it's something else.

Are people, with greedy hopes, attributing their own lack of empathy for other animals to other animals actually mattering (unto themselves) as less? Yes, I believe that this is the case. Could or does that lead to other conclusions/assumptions, such as that other animals lack awareness, have a poor quality consciousness, a kind of foggy experience of sorts? I believe so. To clear up this mistaken attribution, I propose that they need to get their selfish interests towards instrumental/material value for their own personal gain out of the way and consider the fact that they have no way to conclude the clarity of consciousness of another animal -- it's personal, and that the sole nature of this consciousness of individuals equals equality and warrants "equal" respect. But of course, if it were possible, we wouldn’t assume a poor quality consciousness as mattering if it were in a human context.

Not harming other animals is a matter of recognition and logic, it's not purely a selfish feeling matter, as any empathy means that there is a natural recognition of non-humans' inherent dignity (meaning equal and inherent value), it doesn't mean that, more or less empathy indicates how much other animals matter unto themselves.

Q. Wouldn't animal equality lessen human value?

A. Equality is something that already exists, it's not something that is given or taken. Inherent dignity is an inherent value and this inherent value is an immeasurable value, there's no more or less, you either have it or you don't. Inherent worth is the ground of equality. Instrumental value for personal gain is a measurable value.

Q. People often try to assess the value of other animals according to physical attributes and abilities, is that even possible? it seems soo inadequate.

When an animal, human or non-human, is being murdered they both fight like hell.

This is why we must rely on logic and reason to find out what’s right (a logic that’s not in service of greed but love).

That, though, of course could make a person a dangerous threat unto other animals.

Q. It seems as though it is impossible to avoid all harms, almost everything we do harms individuals, from walking to gardening we harm individuals -- bugs. How far down the rabbit-hole could we go?

A. Practice-ability is about what can be done, the rabbit-hole doesn't exist.

Many of us live within a deeply speciesist societal structure that may require us to kill individuals such as insects in order to survive within it. In this way we are faced with a similar moral dilemma as it is in an environmental calamity, kill or starve to death scenario where culpability would be mitigated.

Q. I have done things in the past in ways that has harmed individuals that I now realize that I could have done in nonharmful ways, how can I forgive myself?

A. As far as it goes for the realization of past shortcomings; forgive yourself for you knew not what you could do better. Change often doesn't happen instantly.

Q. How should we go about animal protections?

A. Culpability should be mitigated according to practicability.

When people recognize the sole nature of experience, they are recognizing the equality among the consciousnesses of all animals, human and non-human.

It is unnecessary to know the details of animal protections ahead of time, in order to know whether we need them because morals are what protections are built from and the reason why they are built. Morals come first.

This concludes therefore, that any empathy means equal protections within practicability. Any empathy means that you acknowledge non-human animals as self evidently real, and join the consensus that they are individuals that matter, therefore equally. --- Wayne Martin

THE DECLARATION OF ANIMAL RIGHTS --- By Wayne Martin

The exploitative raising, breeding, using and killing of non-human animals is a direct violation of this principle.

Scientists have come to consensus and humans in majority recognize that non-human animals have a feeling consciousness and also know of the practicability of a plant-based diet.

One is guilty and moral culpability is strong when one knowingly and directly participates in the practice of exploitative raising, breeding and killing by enabling it through/by/with their purchases of non-human animals' body parts, unnecessarily (with recognition of the practicability of a plant-based diet).

In my opinion, fear and terror can promote greed and that all of this can cause one to dismiss the value (inherent) of another (consciousness) and only see an animated object, despite knowledge to the contrary. Greed is responsible for the largest portion of unnecessary violence towards non-human animals, mostly because of unnecessary animal consumption. Fear, terror and greed aside; anger is undoubtedly responsible for a small portion of the violence.

Also, human beings pass things down to the next generation, and this violence of animal exploitation and animal consumption has also become enculturated -- incentive of course being greed.

Total escape from guilt is an impossibility, the idea is that one should not do unnecessary harms (harms other than what is necessary for survival) to non-human animals. ---Wayne Martin

Continue to the Greed page HERE

Visit the Rights page HERE

1/9