Speciesism and some form of aesthetics, they seem to inevitably go together, and this creates a major ethical problem. How do these two connect? Maybe because aesthetics can help to give an excuse to prolong a wrong stance that one is acting up to and is aware of doing so.
Speciesism comprises the conscious element of violence and active or witnessed (onlooker) brutality towards a nonhuman animal or nonhuman animals. The consciousness in brutality is being aestheticized by putting the act of violence in a frame of doing something supposedly noble, dignified, heroic, cool.
Aesthetics can also – instead of being a destructive act – be a part of a momentum that breaks the chain of self-deception that speciesism forms in a human. The ‘sense of aesthetics’ in a person depends on the drive behind their objectives.
Does the aesthetical understanding only has to rectify her actions, and thus just be a means to an end?
Or, is the sense of aesthetics really the sense of connecting to the outer real world that’s being perceived?
Does aesthetics have to be constructive to comprise an appreciation for the “other” which reveals the difference between onlooker and object? In the end of the day I can relate to the world in a form that negates the “other” through my will to destroy. Constructively I can otherwise relate to the world by seeing what there really is.