Try QuoteGPT
Chat naturally about what you need. Each answer links back to real quotes with citations.
Aristotle thought that men were naturally superior to women and Greeks naturally superior to other races; Victorians thought white men had to shoulde… - Steve F. Sapontzis
" "Aristotle thought that men were naturally superior to women and Greeks naturally superior to other races; Victorians thought white men had to shoulder the burden of being superior to savages; and Nazis thought Aryans were a master race. We have come to reject these and many other supposedly natural hierarchies; the history of what we consider moral progress can be viewed as, in large part, the replacement of hierarchical worldviews with a presumption in favor of forms of egalitarianism. This substitution places the burden of proof on those who would deny equal consideration to the interests of all concerned, rather than on those who seek such consideration. Consequently, some reason is needed to justify the fairness of maintaining a hierarchical worldview when we are dealing with animals.
English
Collect this quote
About Steve F. Sapontzis
Steve F. Sapontzis (born 9 February 1945) is an American philosopher and professor emeritus of philosophy at California State University, East Bay who specializes in animal ethics and environmental ethics.
Also Known As
Birth Name:
Steven Frederic Sapontzis
Alternative Names:
Steve Frederic Sapontzis
•
Steve Sapontzis
•
S. Sapontzis
•
S. F. Sapontzis
Related quotes. More quotes will automatically load as you scroll down, or you can use the load more buttons.
Additional quotes by Steve F. Sapontzis
When healthy animals, whose prospects include the possibility of lives that are worth living, are killed, then they suffer the loss of those prospects, even if they do not suffer pain or anxiety in the killing process. So, the mass killing or "slaughter" of animals for food always involves mass suffering. If the phrase "humane slaughter" is supposed to indicate a killing process without suffering, it is a false label.
Where we can prevent predation without occasioning as much or more suffering than we would prevent, we are obligated to do so by the principle that we are obligated to alleviate avoidable animal suffering. Where we cannot prevent or cannot do so without occasioning as much or more suffering than we would prevent, that principle does not obligate us to attempt to prevent predation.
On the other hand, refusing to accept and affirm, avoidable suffering, unfair distributions of goods, uninhibited aggression, and so forth, are refusals which have long been and continue to be part of everyday morality. As such, they are a well-established part of life as it is. Animal liberation extends such concerns, which have traditionally been focused on the human world and on human life, to include equal consideration for animals. In this way, animal liberation is simply carrying on the business of everyday moral practice. Therefore, it does not loathe or deny life as it is. Rather, unlike Callicott's proposed retreat to the wilderness, animal liberation is participating in life and, hopefully, in its continuing moral evolution.
Loading...