That's my new motto. Of course I support the slaughter of lions and leopards too. And your cat. Actually, it's not my new motto, but maybe it should be. How about just locking tigers up and feeding them tofu? What about following them around and shooting their prey in the head just as the tiger is about to get them?
I think this paper is interesting.
4 comments:
While an amusing paper.... it does in its desired way ask a few questions of your philosophy does it not?
I assume the author is not a vegetarian?
What is your answer to his theory of the incompatability of the axiom that animal policing is wrong and humans eating flesh is wrong?
For me...
The concept of animal policing is bizarre. The concept of avoiding extinction of species is a natural human tendancy to protect species for the next generation.
We also protect certain species because we view them as beautiful. They also provide a context and a parrallel story which describes our own life journey. The cunning of a fox. The wisdom of an owl. The loyalty of a dog. The strength of a Lion.
But if we were faced with extinction, and had to choose... the first animals we saved would be the ones we use most... cows and chickens. Both could survive without the existence of any other animals.
Anyway, I am rambling.
I do find it concerning however that we have certain basic instincts that we are attempting to intellectualise away. If we accept that animals eat other animals, and that is fine... I have yet to have heard an argument that can convince me why me eating chicken or beef is wrong.
By the same token, I do find the idea of eating dolphin or dog wrong. No reason. Just a gut feel. Perhaps, or rather undoubtedly purely because of the way I have been brought up.
Anyway... also found the article interesting, and we be even more interested to read a response paper co-authored by Torr-Timmins et.al.
While an amusing paper.... it does in its desired way ask a few questions of your philosophy does it not?
I assume the author is not a vegetarian?
What is your answer to his theory of the incompatability of the axiom that animal policing is wrong and humans eating flesh is wrong?
For me...
The concept of animal policing is bizarre. The concept of avoiding extinction of species is a natural human tendancy to protect species for the next generation.
We also protect certain species because we view them as beautiful. They also provide a context and a parrallel story which describes our own life journey. The cunning of a fox. The wisdom of an owl. The loyalty of a dog. The strength of a Lion.
But if we were faced with extinction, and had to choose... the first animals we saved would be the ones we use most... cows and chickens. Both could survive without the existence of any other animals.
Anyway, I am rambling.
I do find it concerning however that we have certain basic instincts that we are attempting to intellectualise away. If we accept that animals eat other animals, and that is fine... I have yet to have heard an argument that can convince me why me eating chicken or beef is wrong.
By the same token, I do find the idea of eating dolphin or dog wrong. No reason. Just a gut feel. Perhaps, or rather undoubtedly purely because of the way I have been brought up.
Anyway... also found the article interesting, and we be even more interested to read a response paper co-authored by Torr-Timmins et.al.
Do you think factory farming is ok? I have yet to hear a convincing argument for this conclusion.
"While an amusing paper.... it does in its desired way ask a few questions of your philosophy does it not?"
Umm… does it? What is my philosophy? I’ve never really discussed animal stuff with you, and I don't think you've read what I've written on the topic. Is a tone detectable in this remark?
At the most basic level my philosophy is this. Animals suffer on farms, it would be morally better if that suffering didn't exist. So it would be better if farms that caused suffering didn't exist. Various attitudes are consistent with this; one is vegetarianism (vegan is better). Where is the flaw? My ideas about animals extend beyond this, but this is the core.
The author is not vegetarian.
"What is your answer to his theory of the incompatability of the axiom that animal policing is wrong and humans eating flesh is wrong?"
I don't particularly disagree with what he says and I also don't think it's wrong to eat flesh, even human flesh. Do I still need to answer?
Animal policing is also bizarre to me; it's why I liked the paper.
I don't think human needs are irrelevant to how animals are treated and I have no desire to discourage people from wanting to protect dolphins because they are beautiful, it's a valid reason, but from my point of view a relatively unimportant one.
"I do find it concerning however that we have certain basic instincts that we are attempting to intellectualise away. If we accept that animals eat other animals, and that is fine... I have yet to have heard an argument that can convince me why me eating chicken or beef is wrong."
??? You can't draw moral conclusions about the way things ought to be from the way things are, in nature, or in human society. We are moral agents, animals are not. We used to need animals, now we eat them for pleasure. The problem is the suffering not the eating per se.
"I do find the idea of eating dolphin or dog wrong. No reason. Just a gut feel. Perhaps, or rather undoubtedly purely because of the way I have been brought up."
I don't doubt that you are right here. Are you really not interested in trying to be more consistent?
I'm not going to write a paper or essay on the topic anytime soon. I'll post some links to stuff Tracy and I have written, maybe some others as well.
I also find the idea of policing animals bizarre. Yet it is true that predators do cause suffering to their victims -that's why I hate watching hunts in nature documentaries. Yet, in nature, everything eats something, to start interfering with the food chain would be disastrous - where would we stop and what would be the consequences? we've already seen how we have unbalanced ecosystems by our human demands.
There is a difference however to an animal hunting for food (to survive) and us killing (and causing tremendous suffering) of other animals. I'm against causing unnecessary suffering, which is what we are doing. But the tiger will suffer if it doesn't eat. It must kill to survive. Hence, suffering must occur.
The truth is, and it really saddens me, is that life is filled with suffering for all of us, of all types and causes. It's impossible to prevent all of it, but suffering which we can reasonably prevent, must be prevented!
As for instincts, perhaps humans have instinct to eat meat, but I think human's eating habits are much more influenced by culture.
Secondly, we also have instincts of compassion, empathy, caring, etc. I'd rather focus on those.
Lastly, pigs are as intelligent as dogs. They can do tricks, are loving and have unique personalities. Yet people eat them happily and not dogs. In China people eat dogs. What's acceptable is clearly cultural.But not well-thought out.
Post a Comment