Humans and animals, moral value, human supremacy

"My young dog just barked at his reflection in the mirror in poor lighting. It made me think how much we cannot rip away from the feeling that this is a sign (or lack) of intelligence even when we don't want to do so.
If a dog was to devise an experiment, he would put our scent on a bush, bring us over to it and test to see if we recognize ourselves. Upon examining the bush, we would think "What are we doing here? It's just a bush" to which a dog would conclude "What a dumb human, can't even recognize herself on a bush."

Why is it that recognizing oneself using the sense of vision is more important than recognizing oneself using the sense of smell?
I believe it is because we are so biased to think that the qualities we exhibit most prominently are most valuable. It is our anthropocentric, human supremacy bias at play. What do you Think?"
Quote from Andrea Kladar.

If you love animals, stop killing them and go vegan

For anyone who think that animals have a moral value, and that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death upon animals:

Loving/caring/regarding someone having a moral value and inflicting unnecessary suffering and death upon animals for food is an oxymoron.

If you kill individuals that you love, you really need to rethink your concept of love.
There is no moral difference in killing an animal for fun, compared to killing an animal in order to derive pleasure from the taste of it.

We have no need at all for any animal products whatsoever, thus when someone is consuming them, this is done out of the lack of ‘necessity’. And I am sure you agree with the moral proposition that is unethical to hurt and kill animals despite the lack of necessity. Thus your acting according to the moral belief that you believe in.
If you are consuming animal products you are participating in exploiting and killing them. This is not ethical.

The reason why there is animal abuse at all is because of us regarding animals as property, which will remain as long as people insist to inflict unnecessary suffering and death upon animals for palatable pleasures or convenience. It is well known that animal products are unhealthy, and that a vegan diet is healthy: http://www.adelicatebalance.com.au/

And as long as you permit this and participate in this, you are apart of the animal abuse (and also guilty of the most horrendous parts of the abuse, which you enable by endorsing the property status of animals), instead of a part of the solution.
For some clarity I recommend: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/clarifying-the-meaning-of-a-right/#.Ua0CHpxc18E

Go vegan. Act like animals matter morally: www.vegankit.com

Inherent moral value of animals

Basically,
You can’t both say that animals do have a moral by claiming that torture of animals is morally wrong, and to claim that they don’t have a moral value by enslaving, hurting and killing them for palatable pleasure, convenience, habit or tradition.

There can only be two cases:
1. Animals do have a moral value, and if this is the case they have the right not to be treated as commodities; or
2. They don’t have a moral value, and if this is the case then animal abuse is morally justified.
When you admit to the proposition ‘It is unethical to inflict unnecessary suffering and death for pleasure, convenience, habit or tradition’, you admit that animals have a moral value, and thus the right not to be treated as a commodity, including the right not to be consumed.

Learn more here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/

There is a tendency to see inherent or intrinsic value as some mysterious concept. It’s not. It just reflects the reality that some things–nonsentient things like rocks, cars, and cell phones–have value only to the extent we value them. Some others–humans and sentient nonhumans–value themselves even if no one else values them. Inherent value is the name we given to the moral recognition of that valuation.

(photo credit: Adam Foster | Codefor)

---
For anyone who think that animals have a moral value, and that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death upon animals:

Loving/caring/regarding someone having a moral value and inflicting unnecessary suffering and death upon animals for food is an oxymoron.

If you kill individuals that you love, you really need to rethink your concept of love.
There is no moral difference in killing an animal for fun, compared to killing an animal in order to derive pleasure from the taste of it.

We have no need at all for any animal products whatsoever, thus when someone is consuming them, this is done out of the lack of ‘necessity’. And I am sure you agree with the moral proposition that is unethical to hurt and kill animals despite the lack of necessity. Thus your acting according to the moral belief that you believe in.
If you are consuming animal products you are participating in exploiting and killing them. This is not ethical.

The reason why there is animal abuse at all is because of us regarding animals as property, which will remain as long as people insist to inflict unnecessary suffering and death upon animals for palatable pleasures or convenience. It is well known that animal products are unhealthy, and that a vegan diet is healthy: http://www.adelicatebalance.com.au/

And as long as you permit this and participate in this, you are apart of the animal abuse (and also guilty of the most horrendous parts of the abuse, which you enable by endorsing the property status of animals), instead of a part of the solution.
For some clarity I recommend: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/clarifying-the-meaning-of-a-right/#.Ua0CHpxc18E

Go vegan. Act like animals matter morally: www.vegankit.com

Ethics: Why killing animals is morally wrong

Molly,
You wrote: ” I can see how standing up for the animals will help, but i see that researching into bettering methods and conditions for animals destined for slaughter is a better way to say 'no' to animal exploitation. It seems a more practical method to help them.”

You are evading the moral question. You are recognizing that animal abuse is wrong. Animal abuse is wrong because animals have a moral value. But if animals have a moral value, they also have the right to not be used as a resource, including the right not to be killed by humans.

“If you think that any sentient nonhuman life has a moral value, then it is irrational to deny that all nonhuman life has moral value. To put it another way, if you think that dogs or cats (or whomever) have moral value, you cannot logically exclude cows, fish, pigs, and chickens from the moral community. And having moral value means that we cannot use animals as a resource. Therefore, veganism is what follows from the simple recognition that animals are not things. If animals have any moral value, we cannot use them as resources. Peirod.” [Quote: Gary Francione]

About improving conditions:
“Animals are property. There are laws that supposedly protect animal interests
in being treated “humanely,” but that term is interpreted in large part to mean that we cannot impose “unnecessary” harm on animals, and that is measured by what treatment is considered as necessary within particular industries, and according to customs of use, to exploit animals. The bottom line is that animals do not have any respect-based rights in the way that humans have, because we do not regard animals as having any moral value. They have only economic value. We value their interests economically, and we ignore their interests when it is economically beneficial for us to do so.
At this point in time, it makes no sense to focus on the law, because as long as we regard animals as things, as a moral matter, the laws will necessarily reflect that absence of moral value and continue to do nothing to protect animals. We need to change social and moral thinking about animals before the
law is going to do anything more.”
Quote: http://www.believermag.com/issues/201102/?read=interview_francione
Furthermore, the article you quoted isn't science. It is just assuming that an anemia was caused by a certain diet without any evidence. Also in this day both non-vegans and vegans get deficiencies.

Vegans don’t get deficiencies if they eat a starch-based nutritious diet with the possible addition of B12-supplement.
There are e.g. several meat eaters that get B12-deficiency: http://drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/nov/b12.htm

How do vegans look at road kill, abandoned eggs and dumpster diving?

I am frequently asked whether it is “vegan” to eat “road kill,” the abandoned eggs of hens who are kept as companions, or animal products that you find in a dumpster.

The short answer: no.

The explanation: Although these activities do not contribute directly to demand for animal products, they are deeply problematic as a symbolic matter. They reinforce the idea that animal products are things to consume; they reinforce the idea that animals are things, are human resources; they reinforce the social practice of consuming animals; they reinforce demand even if they don’t contribute directly to it.

But what if no one sees you do these things? In that case, you are not engaging in any activity that symbolizes anything to anyone because no one observes it or knows about it. You are not reinforcing demand.

But you observe; you know about it. You are participating in the act of consuming animals; a ritual that has no meaning apart from the speciesist celebration that animals are things to exploit.

Being vegan means that you reject the notion that animals are things for us to consume. They are not commodities; they are not resources.

They are not food any more than a human arm that you find in the dumpster.

We would never think of eating a human. Humans are moral persons. We don’t eat persons. But nonhumans are persons as well. They have moral value. Their bodies and the products made from them are not things we eat, even if we find them dead along the road way or in a dumpster, or even if they abandon their eggs.

*****

If you are not vegan, please go vegan. Veganism is about nonviolence. First and foremost, it’s about nonviolence to other sentient beings. But it’s also about nonviolence to the earth and nonviolence to yourself.

Quote: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/road-kill-abandoned-eggs-and-dumpster-diving/#.UaTpBZxc18E