I never said we should limit it to animals. I specifically said we can include plants and other organisms or phenomena in our moral consideration as well as animals, and the most optimal actions (veganism) would still remain the same (since that causes the least harm to all of them) and the entailed actions would be unaffected in most situations. More strawmanning. And you avoided the question. The question isn’t about whether “only” being compassionate to creatures is entailed by a human rights based reading of the tenets of TST, it’s just about whether being compassionate to all creatures is “entailed” by it period (it’s kind of a rhetorical question, because the answer must be yes if you’re actually following the tenets since it literally says it there). I have spoken in depth about the plants tho objection and explained both why it’s rational - in a consistent manner - to prioritize entities we know are sentient over entities we don’t know are sentient, but also why the best thing to do if we want to protect plants or other non-animal organisms is also to be vegan anyway, so there’s no point saying anything more about that.

Ah, I see - you’re an anti-vegan/anti-animal rights ideologue who has already devoted time attempting to defend the exploitation of animals and attack the arguments in favor of animal liberation. And I’ve encountered this silly objection to NTT before.

The problem with this objection to NTT - which is clearly a desperate cope and attempt to avoid engaging with its implications by refusing to actually answer the question/justify the speciesist differential treatment - is that it misses the point it’s trying to convey and strawmans it. It assumes that what Name The Trait is establishing is that there is no difference at all between the human animal and the non-human animal. But that would be absurd & demonstrably false. We know they’re different. The foundations of anti-discrimination are respecting others even if they’re different from us. They’re different from us in all the ways that don’t matter but the same as us in all the ways that do matter, in terms of what makes an entity warrant moral consideration from us (moral agents, which not all humans are) AKA being a moral patient, i.e. sentient & having a subjective experience of the world & interests to be respected or violated. What NTT is arguing and demonstrating is that the differences between the individuals don’t constitute morally relevant or morally substantive enough differences that would justify the actions proposed by carnists to non-human animals but not to humans, and it shows that other people agree with us even if they don’t realize it, or their views logically entail our position–or at least being unable to coherently defend & justify their own position & actions (leaving ours, the vegan/animal rights stance, as the only one they can consistently explain & justify)–because when pressed to justify the differential treatment consistently, they can’t; they’re led into contradiction or absurd conclusions that they usually don’t genuinely hold.

Now if I were to steelman you and presume you knew that we know the beings are different and possess differences, and that what you really meant is that they have different moral value in your opinion, or really that they have such substantially different moral value that it warrants harmful actions done to one group of beings that you wouldn’t hold to be permissible to the other group, then obviously that’s a moral claim of yours about the individuals’ rights & our duties to them and shouldn’t be equivocated with the fact that the individuals simply have differences between them.

It also isn’t denying that people believe–or think they believe, at least on the surface of their views & thoughts on the matter, even if further scrutiny of those beliefs would reveal underlying inconsistencies & maybe even their true/genuine beliefs/values don’t align with that superficial belief–at least on some level, that humans and other animals are not equal in moral value, and even that it’s okay to exploit & kill other animals for unnecessary purposes but not humans. Of course people openly state their belief in that, and they would need to believe that in order for their actions as carnists to align with their beliefs. But, while acknowledging your beliefs, we can still challenge you to justify why you believe in that discriminatory attitude in a consistent manner by asking for specific reasoning that focuses on the differences between the individuals, since we can equalize every other aspect of the situations & most humans wouldn’t use any of the circumstantial justifications to do those actions to humans in the same circumstance, so the real reason is revealed to be speciesism, as we’re able to isolate that the only difference that they use to justify the differential treatment consistently is species - but species is a surface level category, and beyond it leading to absurd conclusions to use species membership itself as the justification, it’s question begging/circular reasoning to simply repeat the species difference, as the question’s premise was already about going beyond simply species category and was asking about the trait differences often contained in the individuals that the argument’s reasoning is further reducible to that would shine light on the values & reasoning behind it. So it’s not a well-reasoned position or justification if you can’t explain why or what specifically about that species difference justifies the differential treatment.

It’s not saying there’s no difference. It’s saying you can’t name what specific differences between them you’re using to justify your differential attitude and standards of respect/fair treatment, and the harmful actions permitted exclusively to some and not others based on species membership. If you can’t defend and justify it clearly, and take the reasoning to its logical conclusion and explore the exact logic it’s predicated on, then it shouldn’t be done - that is when an action results in victims and is causing serious harm to others, aka individuals who can experience that harm or the effect of that harm inflicted upon them, i.e. sentient beings. Extraordinary harm requires extraordinary justification.

It’s not even necessarily equating humans and non-human animals as having equal moral value, though it can be tweaked to challenge someone to justify not valuing them equally - usually it’s focused specifically on challenging carnists to justify the actions done to non-human animals that are believed to be unjustified when done to humans, in a context where it’s not necessary to choose between which group (humans or non-human animals) to prioritize, and it’s simply a choice of either causing unnecessary harm to non-human animals (and plants, environment, humanity etc for that matter) or avoiding doing so as much as we can. You can believe that humans matter more than other animals and still believe that other animals matter enough that it’s not okay to exploit & victimize them for unnecessary purposes.

Humans are different from pigs.

People who use NTT already know this. They’re different species of animals, belonging to different biological/taxonomic groupings, and those species differences entail trait differences. We never tried to argue they were literally the same. They’re different, and so are men and women. So are different races. If they weren’t different they would be the same sex (or gender) and the same race, so they’re different by virtue of their differences & their membership to different categories as determined by those differences (traits). But that doesn’t mean they don’t all deserve moral consideration - and I would ideally hope to be able to ask for equality and equal (rather, equitable, which is more balanced equality) respect & treatment of those individuals regardless of their differences, but will settle for other animals simply having their status raised to where it’s not acceptable to violate their interests for trivial purposes as humans are doing to them today - even if you would prioritize a human over a non-human animal in a situation where you can only save one from drowning or fire for example (regardless of whether I agree with that). What matters to me is sentience/consciousness/subjective experience, but I’m willing to extend consideration even beyond those we know can experience it (animals) to be safe.

What NTT drills down into is the reality that there’s no actual difference people can name consistently between humans and other animals that they would use in all cases to argue that needless harm to one group or individual is ok and to the other it isn’t. That doesn’t mean there isn’t one, but until you can name one, you shouldn’t be doing something you can’t justify, and should err on the side of caution by being vegan. Veganism can easily and consistently be justified. Carnism can’t. It’s a far less morally defensible position, in terms of the objective reality that it’s much harder for most people to defend it.

The burden of proof/justification is on those who want to discriminate between groups of individuals, to explain & justify why they’re doing it. Not on us to explain why respecting one entails respecting the other. It automatically does until you can justify why you would exclude certain groups from moral consideration. Otherwise, the exact same reasoning can be used to say “I don’t have to justify my racism/sexism” etc. or “They’re just different, therefore it’s okay”, or “The fact I can’t explain why it’s okay to treat them differently in ways unnecessarily harmful to some of them, doesn’t mean there isn’t a reason/justification/difference that I’m using/basing the differential treatment on which I just can’t name”. If you can’t name it, don’t do it. Because it’s unreasoned cruelty, and you better have a good argument for it, which is going to be very difficult and much easier and better to concede that it’s wrong or unjustified and you shouldn’t do it. As simple as that.

i know this is a hot take, but i don’t, personally believe in any rights at all.

Not surprising at all… In order to be so committed to an anti-vegan/anti-animal rights position and have thought so much about how to justify the senseless violence, manipulation & oppressive domination & massacre we commit on other animals/sentient beings (rather than reaching the more positive conclusion that we shouldn’t, & should instead evolve morally as a society & expand our circle of moral consideration once again after doing so with various groups of humans in history), it often does require or lead to softening down & compromising on one’s stance on human rights (& sometimes being ok with things done to humans that most humans aren’t), or abandoning it entirely, or perhaps never holding one in the first place. That’s why when a class of individuals exist who are so heavily oppressed as the non-human animals are, that injustice anywhere is always a threat to justice everywhere, because it serves as a model for how humans could be treated if anyone with the ability wanted to deliberately lower their status, rights, freedoms & power (& the treatment of victimized humans has been based on the treatment of non-human animals all throughout history, where if “oppressed humans are treated like [non-human] animals”, we can logically conclude that the non-human animals are treated much like oppressed humans). All injustice is connected and systems of oppression and domination and exploitation strengthen and uphold each other. A good example of this is how human slaughterhouse workers are exploited in the meat industry that exploits non-human animals. And there is substantial psychological research showing high and consistent associations between more meat consumption & rationalizing behaviors/justification methods, and higher prevalency of “dark triad” & “dark tetrad” personality traits, as well as belief in the morality of social domination & inequality in society in general, and even more conservative/right wing views.

“He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.” - Emmanuel Kant (who I don’t agree with on a lot of things, but this is a good and true quote).

i would ask if “right” is the correct term for the motivation to treat animals well. i’d say it’s more about doing the right thing, not respecting a right.

That’s neither here nor there. While I don’t agree with your concept of individuals (including humans) not having rights (I think rights are a crucial element in both expressing a preference for and enforcing the protection & security of individuals’ interests), and others simply being expected to do the right thing somehow (and I’m not sure how well that would work in a legal or moral framework), presuming you aren’t okay with humans for example enslaving each other, and you would want them to be stopped and have those humans be protected from enslavement and the actions of others who would seek to harm them, then it could theoretically manifest in the same systems & actions anyway. You can hold that view and it should lead to the same conclusions about your actions regarding both humans and other animals.

So if you don’t think humans or other animals have rights, but you still think it’s immoral for humans to for example farm and kill other humans, but not other animals, then the tension remains between finding that action morally unacceptable to one species and not to others. Sentience can’t be the reason/morally relevant difference, since most animals, and all the ones we’re exploiting & killing, possess it.

so? sentience isn’t the basis of the axiom of being compassionate to creatures.

In my opinion, it is. What is axiomatic to someone can be different for someone else. But I also think that sentience is actually the fundamental reason why most humans care about each other, and to a degree about certain other animals (like dogs or cats) too, even if they don’t know it. That’s pretty clearly revealed when you remove all other factors and isolate the qualities that actually matter morally to people. Sentience gets to the bedrock of moral consideration. We can go beyond it, I’m not saying we can’t, but certainly the presence of sentience does confer moral import for most humans, when being consistent, and renders an entity as deserving of moral consideration. It makes no sense to try to argue that non sentient entities deserve moral consideration while simultaneously arguing that sentient entities don’t, in order to conveniently justify your actions in an illogical manner since more non sentient and sentient entities are harmed by them compared to the alternative actions proposed by vegans/animal rights advocates.

distinction between people and animals

The reasons why this phrasing itself is speciesist are twofold, because it both implies that humans are not animals, and it also implies that non-human animals lack personhood : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood#Non-human_animals “Those who oppose personhood for non-human animals are known as human exceptionalists or human supremacists, and more pejoratively speciesists.[87]”

i’d admit its speciesist

Good to hear some honesty

speciesism is necessary for correct action.

Can you elaborate? What do you mean by correct action? Morally correct? Or just what serves the species you care about (humans)? [Though it doesn’t - it’s negative to all life on Earth what we’re doing, and we’ll be one of the worst affected by it - but let’s entertain the hypothetical that it did.] Because that’s ingroup-outgroup bias and the same logic could be be used to say “racism is necessary for correct action - when defining correct action as what benefits my race the most”. In other words, racism is necessary for racism, and speciesism is necessary for speciesism. It’s essentially using the form of discrimination to justify itself, which is again question begging/circular reasoning.

you shouldn’t treat lions like cows, or dogs like fish. and you shouldn’t treat animals like humans.

Your last sentence is a contradiction because humans are animals, and you can’t treat all animals differently from some animals (only most from some or some from others), so you likely mean non-human animals. But anyway, this is vague and it depends on what you mean as to whether I agree with you or not. There are differences between these species of animals, as well as differences between individuals within those species, as well as the circumstances they’re likely to be in, that would confer different needs, abilities, interests, etc. depending on the exact nature of the individual and also on the situation. These are all factors that I think we should take into account when considering the ethics of actions to different individuals and their circumstances and what treatment is most appropriate, ideal or optimal. But these aren’t arbitrarily based on species, these are actually acknowledging and addressing the underlying trait differences, and circumstantial differences, which are either entailed by or contingently related to species. The purpose of Name The Trait, again, is not to argue there are no trait differences, but that these differences don’t constitute morally relevant differences such that/in the sense that they would render it morally permissible to devalue one & treat them with a lower standard of respect, or especially to do harmful actions to them. But that doesn’t mean these traits of individuals (& circumstances) don’t have any relevance at all, since for example a human child has different needs than a human adult, based on the traits that are entailed by the age difference, but we wouldn’t use the age difference itself to arbitrarily justify exploiting & killing children but not adults. We should use these traits to infer how we can best manage a situation so that it balances everyone’s interests fairly & equitably, not use them as excuses to discriminate harmfully/oppressively.

So, what you’re describing isn’t exactly speciesism (though I obviously don’t know what you meant by how we should treat those animals differently from each other, in what specific ways, and why, but let’s pretend it was positive). The differential treatment - which is not stemming from a motivation to justify harmful actions to them, but rather to help them, while balancing others’ interests as well (in a situation where that was actually the goal) - is not indexed to species but to whatever other trait differences convinced you that variation in recommended actions was acceptable or ethical or beneficial. Antispeciesism rejects the moral import of species membership & doesn’t arbitrarily discriminate based on species; holds moral considerability to either supervene on sentience or at least to be guaranteed/entailed by sentience (even if there are other avenues to moral considerability), and values the differences in individuals’ interest, needs, abilities & circumstances instead.

However, saying for example “we should treat lions, cows, dogs, fish, and humans with different levels/standards of respect”, is usually going to be speciesism, and arbitrary/incoherent, since the trait differences that people would turn to to try to justify it would lead to contradiction or absurdity. That said, it’s important to remember that we aren’t asking you to immediately view all sentient beings as your equals. You can still be a human supremacist, and think humans matter a lot more than other animals, but also believe that other animals matter enough and are deserving of moral consideration in such a way that it’s not moral for us to exploit/harm/kill them unnecessarily (or that their interests not to have those actions done to them matter more than your trivial desire to do them, despite alternatives) even if you would sacrifice them over a human if you had to choose.

That’s not accurate — Poore & Nemecek didn’t just lump LCAs together. They harmonized 570 studies into a standardized framework precisely to account for methodological differences. That’s why the paper is so highly cited and why its dataset is still being used by other scientists and even the IPCC. And crucially, its conclusions are backed up by dozens of other independent studies and meta-analyses, so dismissing it as ‘bad science’ is simply not credible.

Firstly, if plants are included in creatures, and we’re supposed to be compassionate to them in accordance with reason (as well as animals), then wouldn’t reducing unnecessary harm (and suffering, for sentient beings) caused to all of them by only using plants directly instead of harming much more via animal exploitation, while simultaneously not deliberately exploiting and causing harm and suffering to sentient beings, be entailed by seeking to treat them with compassion? How is it compassionate to either animals or plants to deliberately cause much more harm and to much more of them than we need to just because we don’t want to change despite being able to meet our needs (and even desires, tho they’re less important to us than the lives & basic freedoms & interests to not be exploited & made to suffer & killed are to sentient beings) with alternatives? Seems quite uncompassionate.

Secondly:

creature noun 1. an animal, as distinct from a human being.

Like I said I’m mostly a descriptivist. So you’re free to define “creature” as whatever you want it to mean. Hypothetical future sentient AIs can be considered creatures too, I’m fine with that. But I think TST Tenets are probably using the standard/common definition of “creatures” that means animals - though I can’t say for sure. LaVeyan Satanism, btw, does seem to consider creatures to mean humans and other animals.

(Note that the phrasing of the definition I listed, while it may not be the intent, is speciesist since it implies & upholds the pseudoscientific and religious belief that humans are not animals [and not creatures] and are in some different category, in order reaffirm our belief in human supremacy & devalue non-human animals to make it easier to justify what we want to take from them and do to them).

And yes, it is absolutely a whataboutism to derail a subject about animal rights into accusations of alleged hypocrisy that we would still be harming plants (even if we’d be harming far less plants than we would if we were exploiting animals too), which is a combination of tu quoque and nirvana fallacy, and it’s the most common & clichéd deflection to the arguments in favor of veganism/animal rights.

Even if we were somehow hypocrites for still harming plants, even though we’re choosing the least harmful & most ideal option that’s practically available to us, and are harming the least plants and least animals possible, and avoiding contributing to/participating in systems that deliberately/opportunistically & unnecessarily exploit, harm & kill beings we know to be sentient (non-human animals), and wouldn’t be in favor of harming plants unnecessarily either (even if there’s no evidence they’re sentient like there is for animals); that still wouldn’t make our argument about animal rights wrong, since it’s not about us, it’s about the animals. Address the argument, not the arguer. So all this essentially boils down to various forms of ad hominem against us, the people defending non-human animals and representing their interests, and very little willingness to actually focus on the non-human animals and engage with the arguments we made.

Also, if we’re hypocrites for still harming (a much smaller number) of plants unavoidably because living causes an amount of unavoidable harm (but that doesn’t mean all or any amount of harm is justified unnecessarily, of course, especially deliberate victimization of sentient beings), everyone else is a much bigger hypocrite for claiming to be compassionate to all creatures while paying others to be cruel to those creatures so that you can consume products you don’t need. So you should at least come over to our side first and then we can talk about future sci-fi concepts & hypotheticals of how we can progress to a system where plants aren’t harmed by our lifestyles either, if possible - surely you must be in favor of that if you care about plants (or animals), right?

How is asking someone to identify the criteria which they’re using to justify the discrimination between individuals a “fallaciously framed argument”? There’s nothing fallacious about it. If people are able to just arbitrarily treat some individuals differently than others without having to explain their reasoning, then we can just as easily rationalize racism, sexism or any other form of discrimination as “it just is what it is” and refuse to engage with any attempt to justify it. It’s of course convenient and in the short-term interests of the victimizer/oppressor to want to avoid having to defend their position or confront the logical entailments of their actions & beliefs, and yes of course you don’t literally physically have to, but as I was saying you would need to provide some kind of reasoning in order to have and present a coherent and consistent position and justification for the actions & the differential treatment.