#4: Humans and Animals - It's All Relative

Foer writes, "Humans are the only animals that have children on purpose, keep in touch (or don't), care about birthdays, waste and lose time, brush their teeth, feel nostalgia, scrub stains, have religions and political parties and laws, wear keepsakes, apologize years after an offense, whisper, fear themselves, interpret dreams, hide their genitalia, shave, bury time capsules, and choose not to eat something for reasons of conscience." We eat animals because we're different than them, yet we refrain from eating them because we're different from them. Is it legal to justify the same thing in two different ways? I guess it is, but it's comical how two extremes can use the same reasoning to justify why they do something (or don't do something.) This idea reminds me of another issue: abortion. If the pro-choice side and the pro-life side both claim that they believe in what they do because they value life, then you know that the issue must be complex. I think that one way complexity is illustrated is when two polar opposites defend their side with the same reasoning. When this happens, you know that the debates will go past the rights and wrongs. Animal agriculture is not just about morality. It's about the environment, tradition, the future, and desire. Humans are animals but animals aren't humans. (?) It's all relative . . .