More on the Vegan ethic...
I don't really want to talk about abortion again, because those discussions usually go pretty much nowhere, and I don't have a particularly strong opinion on the matter, anyway (certainly not as strong as the people who like to discuss it). But, since I've been thinking a lot about Richard Dawkins anyway, I wanted to point out something that I recently realized from reading the most current issue of The Believer: namely, that Peter Singer is a founding member of the "Great Ape Project," which Dawkins also has endorsed.
Basically, the Great Ape Project aims to extend basic human rights to Chimpanzees, Gorillas, etc. which, in itself, could be a noble goal (I think an orientation of taking the responsibility to care for other species is more in line with a creation ethic than is the animal rights perspective, but the two positions are complimentary). What seems ironic to me is that Peter Singer believes that not only abortion, but infanticide can be justified in some instances. I'm not going to argue against his position on infanticide here, but I would like to contrast his position with the "culture of life" position that I basically hold to. I'm thinking culture of life in the Pope JPII sense, rather than the Pres. GWB sense. How, I would ask rhetorically, can you favor extending human rights to apes, and simultaneously favor taking them away from certain humans? I say rhetorically, because I know Singer has a logically consistent philosophical basis for his position. But it still sounds weird to me.
I was wondering if anyone who actually read my last post (if anyone actually did read it), thought about me labelling Dawkins an "anti-humanist." I was sort of implying that humanism entails a certain amount of speciesism, which is not necessarily the case according to a more broad definition of humanist. I think that a more fundamental(ist?) version of humanism involves the belief that humanity has the ability to transcend natural processes -- either through culture, technology, etc. and that this is a good thing. In other words, humanity is distinctly better in some way than everything else (which doesn't make "everything else" unworthy of charity).
That's all I have time for now, except I also just wanted to say The Believer is probably the most pretentious magazine I've ever read. It blows Harper's out of the water in that department -- perhaps because it's not just intellectually pretentious, it's also artsy and hipstery. Just go ahead and read Robert Christgau's article on Eminem. Dude gives Em way to much credit. I like Eminem, but he's not THAT much of a genius. Or, at least, his genius is more instinctual than that. It can't really be dissected so much without becoming something that it's really not even trying to be -- pretentious, I guess.
Basically, the Great Ape Project aims to extend basic human rights to Chimpanzees, Gorillas, etc. which, in itself, could be a noble goal (I think an orientation of taking the responsibility to care for other species is more in line with a creation ethic than is the animal rights perspective, but the two positions are complimentary). What seems ironic to me is that Peter Singer believes that not only abortion, but infanticide can be justified in some instances. I'm not going to argue against his position on infanticide here, but I would like to contrast his position with the "culture of life" position that I basically hold to. I'm thinking culture of life in the Pope JPII sense, rather than the Pres. GWB sense. How, I would ask rhetorically, can you favor extending human rights to apes, and simultaneously favor taking them away from certain humans? I say rhetorically, because I know Singer has a logically consistent philosophical basis for his position. But it still sounds weird to me.
I was wondering if anyone who actually read my last post (if anyone actually did read it), thought about me labelling Dawkins an "anti-humanist." I was sort of implying that humanism entails a certain amount of speciesism, which is not necessarily the case according to a more broad definition of humanist. I think that a more fundamental(ist?) version of humanism involves the belief that humanity has the ability to transcend natural processes -- either through culture, technology, etc. and that this is a good thing. In other words, humanity is distinctly better in some way than everything else (which doesn't make "everything else" unworthy of charity).
That's all I have time for now, except I also just wanted to say The Believer is probably the most pretentious magazine I've ever read. It blows Harper's out of the water in that department -- perhaps because it's not just intellectually pretentious, it's also artsy and hipstery. Just go ahead and read Robert Christgau's article on Eminem. Dude gives Em way to much credit. I like Eminem, but he's not THAT much of a genius. Or, at least, his genius is more instinctual than that. It can't really be dissected so much without becoming something that it's really not even trying to be -- pretentious, I guess.