Reply to Michelle's Animal Rights

Michelle's asked, "Do you think animals possess a soul or are they void of it and is just a mere "subject of life?" Before I answer that I should highlight what a "soul" is, because certainly it is not anything tangible. Of course, this could be a post of it's own, but to me the soul is the non-physical part of you, it is your consciousness, your emotions, your personality, etc. Animals have these things, they have emotions, they have simple thoughts, and they certainly have personalities.

Michelle stated that the only difference between us and animals is that we know the concept of death. I have to disagree. In Nature of Human Nature last year we outlined the main differences between humans and animals. I can't remember them all but a few were: we can think about the future, we can think abstractly, and we can lie. (I think it was Jean-Paul Sartre who said that lying is the closest we will ever come to true freedom.) But does lying, abstract thoughts, and imagining the future define our souls? I don't think so. So if it doesn't, why would anyone one think that animals don't posses a soul?

I think the whole, "they don't have a soul thing" is just a wimpy excuse to make eating them okay. I don't mean to offend any vegetarians (sorry Shelby) but I'm going to be the asshole who says "yes they do have souls, but I'm going to eat them anyways." And in the Christan omnivorous defence, Genesis clearly points out that it is okay to eat animals, as long as we respect them when they are alive.

Homo sapien means "man the wise." But does our wisdom give us the right to eat animals? How is us eating a chicken different than a lion eating a Gazelle?