by Guest » Mon Nov 04, 2002 12:47 am
I am an anarchist because I find the theory to be appealing. I never suggested that no one can affect the world, I merely suggested that working for the world, as it is, in a way that is ‘moral’ hardly does any damn good.
<br>
<br>My not eating some meat that I have on a plate in front of me is not going to change the fact that a cow had to die, and ecological damage had to occur. Indeed, my not buying that meat will change nothing, because either it will be wasted, or recycled in the system. I accept that. I don't think that not eating that piece of meat is going to do a damn thing. You? You would take that piece of meat and throw it in the garbage, I suspect. Not me. At the very least, assuming I felt I should accept this moralistic view and not eat anything nutritional except for a subset of creatures I deem fit for consumption because they don't feel ‘pain,’ or aren't ‘affected psychologically’ or some other irrational bias; I would take that meat and give it to someone else who does not mind eating meat.
<br>
<br>True humanism can't be egotistical, since humans themselves tend to have many cultures spanning countless ideas and traditions. Indeed, humanism doesn't care about self interest. It only lets people explore themselves as much as possible, this means that at times, self interest is completely irrelevant; Humans themselves, as irrational as they can be, have invented morality, after all. And countless other ideas which contridict ‘reason’ to many. Without humanism, these ideas would be lost. One must laugh sliently to themselves when they realize that is the primary goal to some rather disturbed deep ecologists!
<br>
<br>Anarchy is the only theory which is humanistic. It only stands to define how human cultures interact with one another; defining interhuman relationships is its only goal. You cannot be an anarchist until you fully realize that people are different; tastes, feelings, ideas, visions, momments. This includes eating habits.
<br>
<br>No one says that humanism means that we are superior. The only people pretending to be superior, at least morally, are the people who kill living things becuse they ‘lack’ the intellectual capacity to show physical pain.
<br>
<br>Yes, animals are hurt by other animals. Humans are one of the few animals capable of really seeing that hurt and being affected by it (pets can be affected by someone elses pain). And humans are arguably some of the only animals capable of restricting themselves from hurting (again, pets, due to their neural training, are capable of playing rough without hurting- whereas a wild animal would bite your arm off). But this ‘moral’ justification is laughable! Any other animal that isn't human can go about killing other lower animals, but humans themselves shouldn't? Why? Because apparently, once we've invented this system in which heirarchy doesn't exist, we think it's rational to apply it to lower animals; animals incapable of respecting it as a social system?
I am an anarchist because I find the theory to be appealing. I never suggested that no one can affect the world, I merely suggested that working for the world, as it is, in a way that is ‘moral’ hardly does any damn good.
<br>
<br>My not eating some meat that I have on a plate in front of me is not going to change the fact that a cow had to die, and ecological damage had to occur. Indeed, my not buying that meat will change nothing, because either it will be wasted, or recycled in the system. I accept that. I don't think that not eating that piece of meat is going to do a damn thing. You? You would take that piece of meat and throw it in the garbage, I suspect. Not me. At the very least, assuming I felt I should accept this moralistic view and not eat anything nutritional except for a subset of creatures I deem fit for consumption because they don't feel ‘pain,’ or aren't ‘affected psychologically’ or some other irrational bias; I would take that meat and give it to someone else who does not mind eating meat.
<br>
<br>True humanism can't be egotistical, since humans themselves tend to have many cultures spanning countless ideas and traditions. Indeed, humanism doesn't care about self interest. It only lets people explore themselves as much as possible, this means that at times, self interest is completely irrelevant; Humans themselves, as irrational as they can be, have invented morality, after all. And countless other ideas which contridict ‘reason’ to many. Without humanism, these ideas would be lost. One must laugh sliently to themselves when they realize that is the primary goal to some rather disturbed deep ecologists!
<br>
<br>Anarchy is the only theory which is humanistic. It only stands to define how human cultures interact with one another; defining interhuman relationships is its only goal. You cannot be an anarchist until you fully realize that people are different; tastes, feelings, ideas, visions, momments. This includes eating habits.
<br>
<br>No one says that humanism means that we are superior. The only people pretending to be superior, at least morally, are the people who kill living things becuse they ‘lack’ the intellectual capacity to show physical pain.
<br>
<br>Yes, animals are hurt by other animals. Humans are one of the few animals capable of really seeing that hurt and being affected by it (pets can be affected by someone elses pain). And humans are arguably some of the only animals capable of restricting themselves from hurting (again, pets, due to their neural training, are capable of playing rough without hurting- whereas a wild animal would bite your arm off). But this ‘moral’ justification is laughable! Any other animal that isn't human can go about killing other lower animals, but humans themselves shouldn't? Why? Because apparently, once we've invented this system in which heirarchy doesn't exist, we think it's rational to apply it to lower animals; animals [i]incapable[/i] of respecting it as a social system?