This fragment is contained in > https://farangis.de/reader/edition_farangis_animal_autonomy_reader_2023_1.pdf > Edition Farangis: Animal Autonomy E-Reader, Jahrgang 4, Nr. 1 (2023)
This fragment in German > https://tierrechtsethik.de/hauptsache-undifferenziert-bescheid-wissen/
Knowing things, while being undifferentiated
The relegation of “ the main thing is being for the animals” into the corner, to which one assigns this title, distracts from the fact that the formulation “mainly for the animals” (a freely floating ‘inner trend’ of certain segments of groups dealing with animal topics) actually only represents a superficial consideration of the question.
The question whether “mainly for the animals” is ethically okay or problematic is in our opinion wrongly posed and inconsistently thought, because:
How is the animal question posed at all? In such a way that here actually nothing at all is about animals: since the specifics of their problem are suppressed.
The state we’re currently in
Why should animal concerns be discussed solely in the subjects hitherto assigned to them, rather than in a debiologized attitude towards them? “Being a human being” is conceived as a sociological condition, while non-human animals and animality per se are put into categories of a (supposed and causalistically imagined) “behavioral-biological” dominatedness.
– Animality can be viewed in a debiologized manner
– Respecting existential diversity implies that broader perspectives than the
solely anthropocentric are necessary
– Understanding existential diversity, which includes humans and nonhuman animals, as a “we” means: we can learn from each other, as social beings and as living beings understandable in ecological contexts
See on the ‘specificity of the problem’, and on the question of a critical and at the same time affirmative reorientation of Anthropos:
Ko, Syl/Johnson, Lindgren (2021). Re-centering the Human.
TIERAUTONOMIE, 8 (2), https://d-nb.info/1234872005/34 > https://nbnresolving.org/urn:nbn:de:101:1-2021060613534776089875
The question of who and what Anthropos is – a question of plurality – needs to be asked again, no matter what.
How to deal with all the associations, against whose background animal rights activism etc. is always to be considered:
With so much existent opportunism – which has nothing to do with animal rights, but with the people – parts of the animal-issue-serving movements will always fractionate with all kinds of questionable sides. More clout for half-baked ideas and entirely different agendas. Less plurality.