Talk:Animal ethics

Remove speciesism in the definition of Animal ethics for neutrality and unreferenced reason

After my remove as been undo I opened this discussion. the wiki version contested : "Animal ethics is a branch of ethics which examines human-animal relationships, the moral consideration of animals and how nonhuman animals ought to be treated. The subject matter includes animal rights, animal welfare, animal law, speciesism, animal cognition, wildlife conservation, wild animal suffering,[1] the moral status of nonhuman animals, the concept of nonhuman personhood, human exceptionalism, the history of animal use, and theories of justice." The speciesism should be remove for neutrality and consistency."

Animal ethics is define as a branch of ethics. Speciesism is a branch of the Animal ethics. The definition of Animal ethics cannot be define by is existing and by the study of is branch. It is a vicious circle. Speciesism is a Ideology concept of the animal ethics. The beliefs about specisism is not the role of philosophers, but it's the role of ideologists. The wiki page of specisism say : "The term has several different definitions within the relevant literature." The specisim is not a fact like the other subject of the Animal ethics. But it'is a ideology including the concept of the animal ethics. Many philosopher reject the existence of this concept. Wiki define a ideology as : "An ideology is a set of beliefs or philosophies attributed to a person or group of persons, especially as held for reasons that are not purely epistemic,[1][2] in which "practical elements are as prominent as theoretical ones."[3] Formerly applied primarily to economic, political, or religious theories and policies". Include speciesism in this article make confusion between a philosopher and a ideologist. Definition : "An ideologist is someone who develops or supports a particular ideology."

Define a branch of the ethics as a study and a fallow a ideological concept is of a contradiction of the mean of what is the philosophy.

For exemple, if the wiki page of Livestok is define as a Speciesism concept, that is not a fact, it's a belief. That can be interpreted as a propaganda anti-speciesism and the wikipedia rule will not be respected. Same thing with the animal ethics. Stebulba (talk) 05:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The article says "The subject matter includes", then lists speciesism. Speciesism is a subject matter in animal ethics, are you denying otherwise? You are making something very simple seem complex. There clearly is no need to remove speciesism from the lead. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Speciesism is a complex subject.

wiki of speciesism : Anti-speciesism movement

The French-language journal Cahiers antispécistes ("Antispeciesist notebooks") was founded in 1991, by David Olivier, Yves Bonnardel and Françoise Blanchon, who were the first French activists to speak out against speciesism. The aim of the journal was to disseminate anti-speciesist ideas in France and to encourage debate on the topic of animal ethics, specifically on the difference between animal liberation and ecology.

In fact animal ethics is a topic of the Anti-speciesism philosophy/ideology.

(anti-)speciesism are a different branch a child of the animal ethics. Anti-speciesism ideology includes by itself "animal ethics" in its field of expertise.

wiki of speciesism : "Speciesism results in the belief that humans have the right to use non-human animals, which scholars say is so pervasive in the modern society."

Philosophers of animal ethics doesn't care about speciesism, they matter about animal rights, wlefare... If a philosopher doesn't believe in speciesism or anti-specism conception of the reality, how they can matter about that ?

The list of subject is long enough to understand what is the animal ethics. But including speciesism make confusion with philosophy and a belief in a ideology. Stebulba (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but you are completely incoherent. English might not be your first language so we should assume good faith but what you are saying is just nonsense. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

It's true, english is not my first language.

"Speciesism is a subject matter in animal ethics, are you denying otherwise?" YES I am. Animal ethics is a subject matter in concept of (anti-)Speciesism, not the otherwise.

The Antispeciesist notebooks encourage debate on the topic of animal ethics. What do you not understand ? Chicken or egg first ? Include Speciesism is nonsense, because that denying the concept of philosopher/ideologist founder of the (anti-)Speciesism.

"In 1970, Richard D. Ryder coined speciesism, a term for discrimination against animals based on their species-membership. This term was popularized by the philosopher and ethicist Peter Singer in his 1975 book Animal Liberation. The late 1970s marked the beginnings of the animal rights movement, which portrayed the belief that animals must be recognised as sentient beings and protected from unessential harm"

Thant mean that the anti-speciesism is a branch of the animal rights and the animal rights is a main subject of the Speciesism.

"the belief that animals must be recognised" The anti-Speciesism founder define anti-Speciesism as a doctrine to recognise as sentient and protect from unessential harm all animals. That mean a philosopher cannot matter about anti-Speciesism, but must fallow is doctrine.

Where is the philosophy when I philosopher cannot matter about something but must fallow a doctrine ?

Include Speciesism is inconsistent with all other wiki pages or paragraphs. Stebulba (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Can you please provide a source for the claim that you make? Speciesism (and anti-speciesism) is indeed a central topic of the subject of animal ethics. I don't see a reason to remove speciesism from the list either. Rasnaboy (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

In my second messages of this talk about a liked sourced source from speciesism's wiki page.

"The French-language journal Cahiers antispécistes ("Antispeciesist notebooks") was founded in 1991, by David Olivier, Yves Bonnardel and Françoise Blanchon, who were the first French activists to speak out against speciesism. The aim of the journal was to disseminate anti-speciesist ideas in France and to encourage debate on the topic of animal ethics, specifically on the difference between animal liberation and ecology."

How Antispeciesist philosopher/activist can encourage to debate of animal ethics if wikipedia said that Antispeciesist is a main subject of ethics animal? That is a vicius circle. Your point contradicts The Antispeciesist notebooks already sourced by wikipedia where ethic animal for thoses philosophers is a subject of antispeciesist. Not the reverse.

You ask me sources, I give you the hundred sources that speciesist wiki'page linked, plus all linded sources that philosopies wiki'pages linked. Philosopy wiki'pages make the difference between ideological concept and philosophy.

Usualy, it's the people who want add something they need sources. Why you ask me source when yours points have no source ? Opinions is not a source or fact who respect wiki'rules.

How can we deal with that, do I have to revised hundred sources when you not give any references to support your point ?

(Anti-)speciesist is a controversial word, a ideology concept with a doctrine. Care about speciesist concept is the role for a another branch of philosophy, the criticism.

Animal ethic matter about animals, not critisim on already existing philosophy theory child of animal ethic.

This page have a sub category called Ethical theories. The (Anti-)speciesist theory should be in this category or a new category called animal ethic theories That should not be a main subject.

"Speciesism is indeed a central topic of the subject of animal ethics." This is a opinion and it's not the true. This opinion is mostly from the not philosopher anti-speciesism activists, and it's not neutral.

The philosopher anti-speciesism activists claim that speciesism is a ideological concept.

I looked dozens schools programs on animal ethic and no one claim (anti-)speciesist on theirs websites.

"In practice, speciesism is the ideology that justifies and enforces the exploitation and use of animals by humans in ways that would not be accepted if the victims were human." (google translate) https://www.cahiers-antispecistes.org/le-specisme/

How the ethic animal philosopy can be the belief of the existing of a ideology? They suppose to matter Animal Ethic. Ideology is distraction for philosophers.

Wiki definition "Animal ethics is a branch of ethics which examines human-animal relationships, the moral consideration of animals and how nonhuman animals ought to be treated."

Wiki don't claim that animal ethics is the believes of the ideology (anti-)speciesism but is a branch of ethics which examines human-animal relationships...

This important because wiki break the sense of what is ethic in philosophy and discredits wikipedia reputation.

All philosophers have consensus on what is ethic, but they don't have consensus about the concept of speciesism. The debate about this no consensus is in the steep of speciesism, not in steep of the animal ethic.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333910353_Is_Speciesism_Wrong_by_Definition :

"Since the dawn of animal ethics as an academic discipline, some philosophers argue that speciesism is wrong for the same reasons that undermine racism (Singer 1975; Regan 1983) while others defend it by rejecting this analogy Cohen 1986; Williams 2009)."

It's why is important to make difference between a ethical theory and facts likes discriminations, welfare etc. as subject of animal ethics.

How can you claim that the not belief of the existence of speciesism can be the main topic of a philosophy on animal ethic? That broke the rule of what is philosophy.

same sources "As a first approximation, speciesism may be defined as a form of discrimination based on species membership"

Discrimination is a topic of animal ethic, and Speciesism is a philosophy theory who include as topic the discrimination and others topics from animal ethic.

Speciesism is the legacy from animal ethic. Speciesism cannot exist whitout animal ethics, but the reverse is possible.

It's important to understand what is Speciesism before to use it in inappropriate place.

A encyclopedia should be consistent.

Thanks for your response. But please explains yours point of view.

If you find a source please explain why your source can contradics whitout inconsistence the wiki'pages.

I think a sub category for theory should be a compromise.

Sorry for my english, please as questions if somes important phrasing is no nonsense. Stebulba (talk) 06:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Ethical theories section update

Hello! Wonderful article, however the "Ethical Theories" section was flagged by wiki for being written in a persuasive style. Please consider restructuring the three theories in a more factual manner. --Chocolate222moose (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Intensive animal farming

I am quite surprised that intensive animal farming is currently not mentioned. Farmed animals are roughly 1000 times more numerous than animals in laboratories, and there are many commonplace practices that seem very painful, such as the mutilation of piglets. Alenoach (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. There must be discussions on intensive animal farming and other domestication practices in the article. Currently, there is just a small section on environmental ethics. Rasnaboy (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)