Response to Shelby, "Killing Animals and The Bible"

"So, my question is: does it matter from whence an ethic comes, if the ethic is correct?"

I think that it matters a lot. A person who is a vegetarian for ethical reasons, and a person who just doesn't eat meat because he or she doesn't like the taste of it probably won't have much in common. There are so many different paths that can lead to the right thing; what really matters is why somebody is doing (or trying to do) the right thing. I actually believe the opposite of what Shelby is saying; I think that a person's intentions matter more than the actual outcome. In other words, the ends do not always justify the means but the means might justify the ends. For example, somebody who is committed to the ethical treatment of animals, and tries really hard to be a vegan but slips up every once in a while is doing a better job of being a moral person than somebody who doesn't care about animal rights, but always refrains from eating animal products for other reasons (religion, health, personal preference).

Response to Hallie, "The Yuck Factor"

Hallie wrote that the "yuck factor" of animal experimentation, as well as examples brought up in class such as pedophilia and incest, is not enough to justify deeming it immoral. She says that, in the cases of pedophilia and incest, there may be a "yuck factor" because we have been socialized to view them as wrong, but they can also be proven immoral on more rational grounds. I think that pedophilia can be proven to be immoral, because it involves children who cannot consent, but incest between consenting adults does not seem to harm anyone, and I am not sure why we are morally opposed to it. As I brought up in class, there is the fact that children conceived through incest are more likely to have deformities, but that is not the only reason we don't like it. There is just something about incest that makes people feel uncomfortable. Hallie brings up the example of homosexuality, which I think is a good example of the "yuck factor". Many people would probably describe homosexuality the way I described incest; "there's just something about it that seems so wrong". "It's so unnatural". I agree with Hallie that these vague feelings of discomfort are not enough to deem something immoral. However, in that case I do not see why incest is illegal (and considered immoral). Does anybody have a good defense for the widely held claim that incest is immoral that doesn't involve the "yuck factor"?

Sacrifice and Vegetarianism

In class, we have talked about the ties between vegetarianism and religion. In our society, I think we tend to value people who are self-sacrificing. We see it as noble, even though it can be a bad thing. This probably stems from religion (martyrs, Jesus' death, etc). I don't know much about religion, but I was raised Catholic and I know that in church, everywhere you look, there is a depiction of Jesus on the cross. Dying for a cause can sometimes be a very noble and brave thing to do, but I take issue with our culture's glamorization of self-sacrificing. People who are constantly sacrificing their own happiness for others are unhappy, and nobody should have to live that way. I think this might tie back to vegetarianism, because for many people, giving up meat is a sacrifice. More extremely, starvation is a sacrifice many people make for religious or spiritual reasons. Though I am not suggesting there is a direct link between eating disorders and vegetarianism, I think that this element of sacrifice is present in both. Having the "strength" to give up types of food, or food in general, is seen as heroic and respectable. There is a book (which I have not yet read) called "Women, Food, and God", which argues that the way women eat can be traced back to their relationship with religion/God. I think this is interesting, and I think the way we value sacrifice in our society could have something to do with this.
Question: Other than the religious implications, why do we value sacrifice so much?

PETA is at it again

In response to the new TSA scans, in which people must go through an invasive full-body scan in order to fly on an airplane, PETA has released a new and insulting ad:

There is a lot that is wrong with this ad. It makes many assumptions, such as:

• Being vegan will necessarily make you healthier.
• Being healthy necessarily gives you a thin, "sexy" body.
• Vegans and/or healthy people can't be fat.
  
• The only reason people don't want to go through the TSA scans is because they are ashamed of their unattractive bodies, not because it is an invasion of privacy that many people are not comfortable with.

The last one is especially annoying to me. There are so many reasons people might not want a random person to see them naked; chances are it is not because they are embarrassed about how fat they are. I think PETA knows this, and they are making light of a serious problem and using it to further their agenda (and I'm not implying that there is anything wrong with their agenda, but the TSA debate has nothing to do with the ethical treatment of animals). Luckily, most airports refused to post these ads because they do not want to take a political stance on animal rights. That is the wrong reason for doing the right thing. These ads are meant to shame women (I wont believe that it's just a coincidence that it is a woman's body in the picture). Putting these ads out further contributes to the idea that women's bodies are public property, which is exactly what is wrong with the TSA scans in the first place (of course, both men and women are being subjected to TSA scans, but the scans are treating people's bodies like government property. And victims of sexual assault, which is usually women, are less likely to be comfortable with the body scans).
Question: Why is PETA the most well-known animal rights group if their methods of effecting change are so problematic?

Response to Todd, "The Shehitah"

Todd asked if tradition trumps morality. If something is a part of somebody's culture, can it still be deemed morally "right" or "wrong"? This depends on how you view morality. If you believe that morality is shaped by a person's culture and environment, and everybody has their own subjective idea of morality, then I think tradition would trump morality. However, if you believe that there is an objective morality that transcends people's constructed cultures and traditions, than tradition does not trump morality. I believe the latter argument. I think that what is "right" and "wrong" applies to everybody, regardless of who they are and what their traditions are. After all, it could be argued that it is just a part of American culture to fight wars, but that doesn't mean war is not ethically problematic. Challenging our actions on the basis of morality is hard, because nobody wants to believe that something that is an important part of their life (such as religion or culture) is wrong. However, the things that mean the most to us are the things that really need to be challenged.
Question: Do you think morality is objective or subjective?

Response to Shelby, "Animal Abuse, Domestic Abuse"

This is a response to Shelby's post "Animal Abuse, Domestic Abuse". Shelby linked to an article where the author notes that people tend to donate to animal shelters over battered women's shelters. I agree with some things the author said. I believe that it's easy to sympathize with animals because they are moral patients, so they can't do anything wrong, but when a human is in a bad state people ask "What did he/she do to deserve this?" or "Why did he/she let this happen?" People often think that a woman can leave her batterer at any time and it's her fault if she stays. However, an animal cannot choose to stay with an abusive owner. Even though battered women are autonomous beings, they are often so controlled and manipulated by their abuser that they lack any freedom to leave their situation. Because situations with humans are more complicated than situations with animals, the author thinks people will be more likely to sympathize with animals. However, I don't see why the author has to pit the two issues against each other. In fact, it is common for a batterer to also be abusive toward the family pet, so there is definitely some overlap between these two issues. Both animal shelters and women's shelters are important, and I don't think we need to talk about which one is more important, because they both are necessary. However, I think the ideal solution would be to rid the world of abuse so there wouldn't need to be shelters.

Question: How can we rid the world of abuse?

Response to Skyla, "Turkey Day"

My question to you is: What's so bad about tofurcky? What's it going to take for Americans to realize Thanksgiving is not about the 20 pound bird in the middle of the table but more about bringing family together? It's still Thanksgiving even if there isn't a turkey.

I agree with Skyla that the tradition of eating a turkey on Thanksgiving is problematic, but unfortunately that is just the beginning of the issues I have with Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving is a holiday that glorifies the genocide of Native Americans. We all celebrate, give thanks, get together with family and friends, and eat good food, when we don't deserve to celebrate. Americans sometimes like to pick and choose parts of history that are more desirable and paint a prettier picture. Children are taught that the relations between "Indians" and Pilgrims were peaceful. Additionally, I have problems with the Thanksgiving season because Black Friday promotes consumerism and often goes hand in hand with violence. Two years ago, a man was trampled and killed in my hometown at Walmart. Our desire to get what we think is rightfully ours (and this can also be applied to our attitudes about getting land from the Native Americans) can end in tragedy. So, it is interesting to me that Thanksgiving combines the unethical treatment of animals, erasure of genocide, and consumerism gone violent in its traditions.

Question: How can we reform the traditions of Thanksgiving?