Animals!
So, I saw Food Inc. on Wednesday, and today I did the "SAFE" thing at Sylvia Park. For those who are unsure of exactly what this means it's time for PHOTOS!
(Excuse the old-school HTML)
Thus, in conclusion, I'll make some animal ethics comments.
First, one thing that I think about a bit is people who say things along the line of, "I get what you mean, but it's too much effort", "or I can't be bothered", or "but I like the taste of X too much". I'm not sure how people expect me to take such comments but they rank as some of the worst things a person can say to me. A cardinal sin if you will.
To me, the point of ethical behaviour is (at the onset anyhow) the restriction of one's, possibly desired, behaviour in response to greater ideals. Thus, when one is saying "I know I ought to do X, but I don't really want to change my behaviour", they are saying that do not want to be an ethical person, which is "uber" bad to me. The heart of being a virtuous person is to desire to be virtuous. To me, saying, "but I like the taste too much" is admission of simple selfishness.
People who do this will not get a certain form of "respect" from me. I would have this form of respect (I don't really have a better word for it) from someone, say with regards to animal consumption, who said they felt it was acceptable to eat meat, that, perhaps, factory farming was acceptable, and thus, they happily ate meat. Such a person would have my "consistency" respect, even though I may think they are "scum" otherwise (I think there are some arguments for eating meat that are reasonable in a sense, though I disagree that is what I think a virtuous person would practically follow, and certainly not what I would follow, and in such cases I wouldn't think one is "scum" - most meat eaters don't offer such arguments).
There are other possibilities though, which are worse. One is that a person says they agree in principle, but don't really, but think they ought to say that (perhaps to avoid argument). I lack respect for such a person. Say what you think, if you aren't proud to do so, reassess what you believe. If you disagree with me I'll have more respect for you if you say so - I'm not, in general, just going to stop talking to you just based on a disagreement (or two...). Another possibility is that they believe, for example, that animals are simply products for human consumption, but have no real justification for their beliefs, and are too lazy to examine their beliefs. I completely lack any respect for such people.
Thus, if someone said, for example, "it is okay to eat animals, because God has intended for them to be so", I would accept that as "reasonable", and would respect that person for having a consistent foundation to their actions, even though I do not think such an moral view has much merit. Just don't not say to me "but they taste too good" and expect me to think anything other than "you're a dick".
In Food Inc. there was an organic meat farmer, who was one of the more interesting people in the film. The best bit was when he was happily slaughtering and gutting poultry, and talking about the getting-back-to-our-rootsness of it all, about being out in the open air listening to the birds singing, and not realising the irony in what he had just said. I actually wondered if this scene was intended by the film makers as some sort of piss-take of the farmer, to subtly expose a potential fault in his reasoning. I doubt it, it was just the sensibilities that stem from my beliefs. To me, the farmer was obviously willing to reassess certain cultural ideas, but only certain ones. The use of animals as commodities and production devices for humans was not questioned. That just wasn't the sort of thing that one questions.
Slightly changing tack. One thing that I think is important with regards to many ethical questions is how we pose the questions. I feel it is important to put the burden of proof on our current practice. I think people fail to do this when they pose the question "why should I not eat animals?". The real question should be, "assuming we lived in a world where we didn't eat animals, why should we start?". For me, the first question was what I first asked when I was a meat eater. I took the values of our society as the default which needed to be defeated. Our cultural ideas are presumed innocent until proven otherwise. I may have moved to a meat free diet sooner if I'd done otherwise.
I think for all our actions we need to have a justification that says why that ought to be done (or is acceptable to be done), not the other way round, where we inhibit ourselves for activities where we can form a justification for why it ought not be done. Just my thought on the subject.
The simplest way I can state my attitude towards treating animals is that assuming we didn't eat, or use animals, for food (or otherwise), I cannot come up with a good reason as to why I should (being "tasty" doesn't cut it), certainly in the context I actually live in (I'm not "primitive man"). (A possible exception, which is just a change of context, is being stuck on an island with just a cow, and not wanting to die - personal survival counts to me, but such a situation is far removed from most situations I might encounter - though such a "thought experiment" might map to a situation with regards to medical research - which is always an interesting topic - my thoughts on that go beyond what I care to write down here).
Returning to an earlier piont, with regards to comment about restricting one's behaviours to be ethical, I think a "virtuous agent" doesn't restrict their behaviour against their desires. That is, I don't abstain from eating meat, in spite of finding meat "yummy". I know longer have any "hunger" towards eating meat, only revulsion at the thought. Meat would never taste good to me. I would say I have the same feelings, though not quite as strong, towards eating eggs and dairy. This makes me like me as a person.
A guy came up to the table today, and talked for a bit, but seemed to ignore my point about buying free-range pork over factory-farmed pork, and just said "sorry dude, I like pork". He was a typical example of a person I don't really have the form of respect previously mentioned. But, by that, I don't mean I "scorn" him in anyway. I personally think his disinterest in reflecting on such matters only serves to make him a less "well lived" person, and for that I really only have a bit of pity (which makes me sound self-righteous - but I don't think I think I'm better than him, just more fortunate to in my approach to life - I don't know if that makes me sound any better though - I am open to criticism that I'm not "living well").
I found interesting the reaction of his girlfriend. She didn't seem to have any. She didn't add anything to the conversation; she seemed not to pay any attention, or have any thoughts. It was rather sad to me. Why did he feel the need to make a point of "liking to eat pork" to me, with her in tow? Did she think about his actions, evaluate them? Was she willing to criticize them, or did she go along with them? I could not imagine myself being in such a situation and not ask my "romantic partner" for their opinion, or not being concerned at their lack of input at least (maybe because I wouldn't be in a romantic relationship with anyone who didn't have strong feelings regarding such things). I think I read too much into such things though, but I felt, in terms of existential transcendence, or something similar, that she was living in "bad faith", or willing "immanence" or something like that. (I'm misusing the terms to sound wanky, but hopefully you get my drift - she was just drifting along to his relationship dominating personality).
(Excuse the old-school HTML)
Thus, in conclusion, I'll make some animal ethics comments.
First, one thing that I think about a bit is people who say things along the line of, "I get what you mean, but it's too much effort", "or I can't be bothered", or "but I like the taste of X too much". I'm not sure how people expect me to take such comments but they rank as some of the worst things a person can say to me. A cardinal sin if you will.
To me, the point of ethical behaviour is (at the onset anyhow) the restriction of one's, possibly desired, behaviour in response to greater ideals. Thus, when one is saying "I know I ought to do X, but I don't really want to change my behaviour", they are saying that do not want to be an ethical person, which is "uber" bad to me. The heart of being a virtuous person is to desire to be virtuous. To me, saying, "but I like the taste too much" is admission of simple selfishness.
People who do this will not get a certain form of "respect" from me. I would have this form of respect (I don't really have a better word for it) from someone, say with regards to animal consumption, who said they felt it was acceptable to eat meat, that, perhaps, factory farming was acceptable, and thus, they happily ate meat. Such a person would have my "consistency" respect, even though I may think they are "scum" otherwise (I think there are some arguments for eating meat that are reasonable in a sense, though I disagree that is what I think a virtuous person would practically follow, and certainly not what I would follow, and in such cases I wouldn't think one is "scum" - most meat eaters don't offer such arguments).
There are other possibilities though, which are worse. One is that a person says they agree in principle, but don't really, but think they ought to say that (perhaps to avoid argument). I lack respect for such a person. Say what you think, if you aren't proud to do so, reassess what you believe. If you disagree with me I'll have more respect for you if you say so - I'm not, in general, just going to stop talking to you just based on a disagreement (or two...). Another possibility is that they believe, for example, that animals are simply products for human consumption, but have no real justification for their beliefs, and are too lazy to examine their beliefs. I completely lack any respect for such people.
Thus, if someone said, for example, "it is okay to eat animals, because God has intended for them to be so", I would accept that as "reasonable", and would respect that person for having a consistent foundation to their actions, even though I do not think such an moral view has much merit. Just don't not say to me "but they taste too good" and expect me to think anything other than "you're a dick".
In Food Inc. there was an organic meat farmer, who was one of the more interesting people in the film. The best bit was when he was happily slaughtering and gutting poultry, and talking about the getting-back-to-our-rootsness of it all, about being out in the open air listening to the birds singing, and not realising the irony in what he had just said. I actually wondered if this scene was intended by the film makers as some sort of piss-take of the farmer, to subtly expose a potential fault in his reasoning. I doubt it, it was just the sensibilities that stem from my beliefs. To me, the farmer was obviously willing to reassess certain cultural ideas, but only certain ones. The use of animals as commodities and production devices for humans was not questioned. That just wasn't the sort of thing that one questions.
Slightly changing tack. One thing that I think is important with regards to many ethical questions is how we pose the questions. I feel it is important to put the burden of proof on our current practice. I think people fail to do this when they pose the question "why should I not eat animals?". The real question should be, "assuming we lived in a world where we didn't eat animals, why should we start?". For me, the first question was what I first asked when I was a meat eater. I took the values of our society as the default which needed to be defeated. Our cultural ideas are presumed innocent until proven otherwise. I may have moved to a meat free diet sooner if I'd done otherwise.
I think for all our actions we need to have a justification that says why that ought to be done (or is acceptable to be done), not the other way round, where we inhibit ourselves for activities where we can form a justification for why it ought not be done. Just my thought on the subject.
The simplest way I can state my attitude towards treating animals is that assuming we didn't eat, or use animals, for food (or otherwise), I cannot come up with a good reason as to why I should (being "tasty" doesn't cut it), certainly in the context I actually live in (I'm not "primitive man"). (A possible exception, which is just a change of context, is being stuck on an island with just a cow, and not wanting to die - personal survival counts to me, but such a situation is far removed from most situations I might encounter - though such a "thought experiment" might map to a situation with regards to medical research - which is always an interesting topic - my thoughts on that go beyond what I care to write down here).
Returning to an earlier piont, with regards to comment about restricting one's behaviours to be ethical, I think a "virtuous agent" doesn't restrict their behaviour against their desires. That is, I don't abstain from eating meat, in spite of finding meat "yummy". I know longer have any "hunger" towards eating meat, only revulsion at the thought. Meat would never taste good to me. I would say I have the same feelings, though not quite as strong, towards eating eggs and dairy. This makes me like me as a person.
A guy came up to the table today, and talked for a bit, but seemed to ignore my point about buying free-range pork over factory-farmed pork, and just said "sorry dude, I like pork". He was a typical example of a person I don't really have the form of respect previously mentioned. But, by that, I don't mean I "scorn" him in anyway. I personally think his disinterest in reflecting on such matters only serves to make him a less "well lived" person, and for that I really only have a bit of pity (which makes me sound self-righteous - but I don't think I think I'm better than him, just more fortunate to in my approach to life - I don't know if that makes me sound any better though - I am open to criticism that I'm not "living well").
I found interesting the reaction of his girlfriend. She didn't seem to have any. She didn't add anything to the conversation; she seemed not to pay any attention, or have any thoughts. It was rather sad to me. Why did he feel the need to make a point of "liking to eat pork" to me, with her in tow? Did she think about his actions, evaluate them? Was she willing to criticize them, or did she go along with them? I could not imagine myself being in such a situation and not ask my "romantic partner" for their opinion, or not being concerned at their lack of input at least (maybe because I wouldn't be in a romantic relationship with anyone who didn't have strong feelings regarding such things). I think I read too much into such things though, but I felt, in terms of existential transcendence, or something similar, that she was living in "bad faith", or willing "immanence" or something like that. (I'm misusing the terms to sound wanky, but hopefully you get my drift - she was just drifting along to his relationship dominating personality).