how to change your view for animals
Answers
Answer:
Sorry I don't know
Explanation:
1234tstdefzrgxtvdygsfstfs HD dude record hill Hari
Answer:
hope it will help u plz follow me plz and Mark as a brainliest too plz follow plz
Explanation:
If we want a better world for all species – including humans—we need to change the way we view and treat animals. This sounds like a reasonable argument to make. Yet, ordinarily we would stay away from this argument. Stick with us while we explain why:
Our treatment of animals reflects the way we think about them, and vice versa. When we (humans) condone, allow, support and/or profit from the imprisonment, subjugation and mass murder of animals, we are evidently not thinking of, nor treating animals very well. A major part of the problem is that we think of humans as completely separate from (other) animals. Doing otherwise risks being seen as overly sentimental, immature and possibly a crackpot. The maintenance of the human/animal binary (or opposition) is an effective way of silencing dissent against the inferiorisation of animals, allowing humans to convince them/ourselves that it is legitimate to use animals as resources, as objects.
This cultural inferiority of animals is so ideologically normalised that we often do not think about it, nor usually question it: it simply is. Culturally we see this everywhere. For example, when assumptions are made that animals—all animals, irrespective of species or complexities of habitat—are intellectually inferior; that their lives don’t matter as much as ours because they are not as emotional, or because they don’t have family ties like we do, or because they don’t live as long as we do …. This is just the start of a possible list of justifications made to allow humans to cast animals as commodities from whom we can make a profit. Commodifying them, in turn, objectifies them – they become “its”, “things”, not individuals, not subjects. This then loops back around to the normalisation of their treatment – it’s OK to kill and eat them because they are just “things”.
Breaking this cycle, when it is so fully and unconsciously supported by most people, organisations and industries, is incredibly difficult and opens the individual who tries up to all kinds of anger and abuse. But, break it we must. And not just for the animals.
The same arguments used to keep animals “in their place” are those that were used to keep slaves, black people and women “in their place”. To this day they have striking parallels to arguments still marshalled against pushes for social equality. And these arguments come in all forms – from the clearly and outwardly abusive through to a subtle paternalism. For instance, many argued that slavery helped the individual slaves as it removed them from “barbarism” and brought them in to “civilisation”. Advocates of white supremacy, including advocates of apartheid in South Africa, often justified the enslavement of black and “coloured” Africans by claiming that by working for their white masters and mistresses they got work, housing and food, meagre as it might be. Rather than working to ensure that the dismantling of this most institutionalised form of racism was undertaken with due regard for the housing, employment and income practicalities of past servants, pro-apartheid advocates played on the fears associated with widespread social change and ran interference with policies and programs to transition from apartheid, to maximise the fallout from the system change, so that they could argue that apartheid operated not just for whites but also blacks, and that dismantling it was an injustice to all.