Preference

We tend to prefer people that are our family or friends over people who aren't. We also tend to favor people who are from our communities over people who aren't. More controversially, humans tend to favor other humans that belong to their race, religion, gender, or country over people outside of these larger communities. These preferences are unfair because people are not more or less valuable based on how similar they are to us. We prefer people who are like ourselves because we can empathize with them more easily than people who are different from us. For example, when there is a news story of a white kid who brought a gun to school, or committed some type of violent crime, it is treated differently than when a young person of color commits a violent crime. When it is a young white person, everyone says "how could this be happening to our children?" When it is a young person of color, it is some "other" type of person that we feel no connection to. This happens because the media is generally controlled by white people, and people feel more empathy towards others that are "like them". This example of preferring beings that are more like oneself is wrong, and so is preferring a species that is more like oneself. Can our species bias be unlearned, or is it natural?

Ought Implies Can Part II: Food and Morality

In class we have talked about physical health and financial situations that would make it hard for someone to be a vegetarian. Something we haven't spoken about yet is psychological reasons for not becoming a vegetarian. When someone is recovering from an eating disorder they are often told not to restrict their diet. Having "off-limits" food can lead people back into eating disorder habits. Even for someone who has completely recovered from an eating disorder, they might have to follow this rule for the rest of their lives to avoid a relapse. For many people with eating disorders/disordered eating habits, they become a vegetarian or vegan, not for ethical reasons, but as a way to control their lives or as a form of self-punishment. Since many people have eating disorders (8 million Americans*), people who have psychological reasons for not eating meat are not a small exception; they are a large portion of the population. When we talk about people being "morally obligated" to adopt a certain diet, we are implying that people can be "good" or "bad" depending on what they eat. Our society has a tendency to assign morality to food and people who eat certain foods. For example, how often do we hear someone say "I was so bad last night. I ate a piece of chocolate" or "I need to be good for the rest of the week and only eat X amount of calories". Why is a person "good" or "bad" because of what they eat? Obviously, consuming animals has moral implications, but we should blame the industries that mistreat their animals, not regular people who are eating something that they have been exposed to their whole lives.

*http://www.state.sc.us/dmh/anorexia/statistics.htm

"Ought Implies Can": A Response to "The Basic Argument For Vegetarianism"

In James Rachels' article, "The Basic Argument For Vegetarianism", he says that we should adopt a vegetarian diet because there is no real reason to eat meat; we can survive without it. He implies that the only reason people aren't ethical vegetarians is because they like the way meat tastes. Rachels is overlooking many people who do not have food security. Food security is when food is available and accessible to you. While buying vegetables may be cheaper than buying meat, to carefully plan out a diet that includes protein and iron from other sources takes time, knowledge, and probably more money. As Kathryn Paxton George points out in "A Paradox of Ethical Vegetarianism", not everybody has access to or can afford dietary supplements. Also, people are more likely to become an ethical vegetarian when they have access to knowledge about the way their food is made. Not everybody is privileged enough to go to college, or even finish high school. Because not all people have the same education level, not everybody is enlightened about the cruel ways animals are made into meat. So, people might not be able to be an ethical vegetarian because they 1) don't have access to all the foods/supplements necessary for a vegetarian diet and 2) don't have access to the knowledge that leads people to become ethical vegetarians. Rachels, and many other people who propose that everybody should adopt a vegetarian diet, are assuming that everybody can. Vegetarianism and veganism are lifestyles. It is an ethical decision to stop eating/using animal products but it also dictates the way a person will live. Since not all people have the same resources, it is unfair to assume that all people are capable of living their life a certain way.

Question: What changes need to be made so everyone can adopt a vegetarian/vegan diet?

Response to Bridgette-"Ethics of Hunting"

Bridgette talks about hunting in her post, and asks whether it is ethical to kill an animal if it is done painlessly. This goes back to Kaldewaij's argument about the harm of death. As I have said before on my blog, I don't think animals (or humans) are harmed by death, but I do think it is still unethical to kill an animal (or a human) unless there is a good reason to do so. A "good reason" would usually be in the animal's best interest (euthanasia) or self defense (an animal is attacking a human). I would not qualify hunting for food as a "good reason". Hunting for food is still hunting for sport- you're just being resourceful of what's left. It is not ethical to kill a human and eat his or her flesh except for maybe in extreme circumstances, because you don't need to eat human flesh in order to eat. You can get food from many other places. Similarly, it is not ethical to kill an animal for food because you don't need to get your food from animals. I am convinced that hunting is always done as a sport; people wouldn't do it if they didn't find it fun. I think people get a thrill out of killing something without being held morally responsible for it. Killing is power, and people like to feel powerful. Our culture is strangely fixated with killing and violence. It is in our everyday language; we use violent or rape imagery to convey an achievement ("We killed the opposing football team" or "I raped that math test"). Because this glorification of violence is so embedded in our culture, hunting might seem like no big deal, but if you analyze the arguments hunters give for what they do, it is clear that there is no moral justification for the sport of hunting.
Question: Is there another justification for hunting that I have missed?

Absolutism versus Incrementalism

Today in class we talked about absolutism and incrementalism. We discussed whether the meat industry should be reformed (incrementalism) or abolished completely (absolutism). I believe that, if there is something wrong with the world, we need to work towards getting rid of it completely, not making it a little less wrong. I understand that it is easier and probably more practical to just work within the system to make conditions a little better, but if you truly believe that animals deserve rights and freedom, then you are betraying yourself and your beliefs if you don't try to change the system. An incrementalist view is a compromise; matters such as life and death (and animal welfare is a matter of life and death) should not be handled this way. When slavery was still happening in the U.S., an incrementalist view of slavery could be "let's just try and make living conditions for slaves better. Abolishing slavery will never happen; we should focus our efforts on making slavery a little less miserable." The slavery analogy is dramatic, but it is a fair comparison. People sometimes don't realize that it is possible to change the world. You don't have to believe those pessimistic ideas that "that's just the way the world is" and "no one ever said life was fair". If you have a sense of what is right and what is wrong, then you should honor that by not compromising your beliefs. Question: What is a good defense of incrementalism?

Animal Consumption and Dominance (Response to Todd)

Todd suggested that perhaps we associate animal consumption with "strength" because we view the consumption of animals as a form of dominance. I think this is a really good point and I agree with it. We, as humans, are consumers in every sense of the word. We need to buy, eat, own, and dominate to feel superior. Humans value things like money, property, and goods. We also tend to value concrete things over abstract ideas such as love or happiness. We measure wealth by what tangible items somebody has. To love something, to nurture something, or to care for something is seen as "weak" and feminine (as if those two things are synonymous). Therefore, a vegan or vegetarian is seen as weaker than a person who eats meat because killing and consuming are seen as powerful (and masculine) things. Since our society values things that are typically masculine over things that are typically feminine, the violence and domination associated with consuming animals are considered positive. Question: Why does our society view violence and domination as a good thing, but view love and nurturance as a bad thing?

Response to Bridgette ("Harm From Death")

Bridgette asked if animals (and humans for that matter) truly are harmed by death, as Kaldewaij suggests, if they can't reflect on their lost time and experiences, since they are dead. I think this is a really interesting question. When I first read Kaldeqaij's article I agreed with her that animals are harmed by death. However, now that I'm thinking about it more, I think it is morally wrong to unnecessarily end an animals life, but it does not harm the animal. If an animal isn't aware that it is about to die, or it isn't capable of understanding the concept of death (these are two big ifs), then it is not harmed by a painless death. I would say the same thing for humans; if a human wasn't aware that it was about to die then I don't think the human was harmed (if it was done painlessly). I understand I am taking some leaps here by saying that 1) the death must be painless, 2) the animal can't know it is going to die, and 3) the animal can't understand the concept of death, but if these three things are true then I don't agree with Kaldewaij that animals are harmed by death.

With that being said, I do think it is morally wrong to end an animals life (not including special cases). Even though an animal wont know it is missing out on its future, you are still taking something from the animal. If you steal from somebody, and the person never notices, it was still wrong. However, maybe this is like Kant's argument about kicking the dog; it is morally wrong to steal from someone who wont notice or end an unsuspecting animal's life because it harms the character of the person doing these things. My question is: Do we tend to do the right thing because it is good for other people, or because it is good for ourselves?