Ive been thinking about the ethics of what we eat and would love to hear your thoughts on the topic. Lets consider mammals first and move onto poultry and fish after the discussion begins to develop. The goal is to improve the state of things as they are, and I fully support anyone thats trying to eliminate suffering in any way that they can, so lets try our best to deal with the facts as well as the moral and ethical implications of our dietary habits. The arguments from moral relativism are patently obvious and Id like to steer away from them if we can; this argument doesnt pertain to people and groups that have to eat animals for survival. The level of consumption that has stemmed from the industrial age isnt a representation of the circle of life anymore, its the result of an unchecked (collective) hubris that masks the manipulation of people and other animals, i.e., The appetites of the collective hubris are on autopilot and must be taken off of autopilot before we can think about what it is that we are doing. Here is a very simply argument that I formulated: Genome = The complete set of genes or genetic material present in a cell or organism. Cows are mammals and humans are mammals, too. {Fact #1} The cows genome is 80% identical to the genome of humans. {Fact #2} Human beings share 50% of their genome with bananas. {Fact #3} Therefore, If I can survive and thrive off of the banana then I will choose to eat the banana instead of the cow because of the difference in shared genes. [Empirically, 30% makes a HUGE difference] • If need be, I will translate this argument into symbolic logic (for the logic geeks), but I assume you can already understand the logical form and the conceptual implications of the argument. But can I survive and thrive off of bananas (alone)? Probably not, but I can survive without eating the flesh of animals (specifically mammals). Can you survive and thrive off of the flesh of other animals (alone)? Possibly, but most likely not. Are there any instances of healthy individuals surviving and thriving off of a vegetarian/vegan diet? Yes Are there any instances of healthy individuals surviving and thriving off of a omnivorous diet. Yes Here is where the conflict rests: You can survive and thrive in both instances. Death is a part of life, but eating an animal (with a functioning nervous system) that was slaughtered is not necessary for an individual(s) health in the 21st century. There are plenty of individual examples (pro athletes, etc.) that validate this. e.g. Mac Danzig, Jake Shields, Nick Diaz, Nate Diaz, etc. But, of course, the materialist will say making broad comparisons by saying 80 percent of human genes are similar to a cows...tends to be a little bit misleading. I will reply to the person standing in front of me and say: “Animals are my friends...and I dont eat my friends.” ― George Bernard Shaw If animals count in their own right, our use of animals for food becomes questionable - especially when animal flesh is a luxury rather than a necessity. Eskimos living in an environment where they must kill animals for food or starve might be justified in claiming that their interest in surviving overrides that of the animals they kill. Most of us cannot defend our diet in this way. Citizens of industrialized societies can easily obtain an adequate diet without the use of animal flesh. The overwhelming weight of medical evidence indicates that animal flesh is not necessary for good health or longevity. Nor is animal production in industrialized societies an efficient way of producing food, since most of the animals consumed have been fattened on grains and other foods that we could have eaten directly. When we feed these grains to animals, only about 10 percent of the nutritional value remains as meat for human consumption. So, with the exception of animals raised entirely on grazing land unsuitable for crops, animals are eaten neither for health, nor to increase our food supply. Their flesh is a luxury, consumed because people like its taste. In considering the ethics of the use of animal flesh for human food in industrialized societies, we are considering a situation in which a relatively minor human interest must be balanced against the lives and welfare of the animals involved. The principle of equal consideration of interests does not allow major interests to be sacrificed for minor interests (Singer, Peter, 1993, Practical Ethics 2nd Edition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.). The American pattern of fattening cattle in crowded feedlots is spreading to other countries. Meanwhile, the lives of free-ranging animals are undoubtedly better than those of animals reared in factory farms. It is still doubtful if using them for food is compatible with equal consideration of interests. One problem is, of course, that using them as food involves killing them. Apart from taking their lives there are also many other things done to animals in order to bring them cheaply to our dinner table. Castration, the separation of mother and young, the breaking up of herds, branding, transporting, and finally the moments of slaughter - all of these are likely to involve suffering and do not take the animals interests into account. Perhaps animals could be reared on a small scale without suffering in these ways, but it does not seem economical or practical to do so on the scale required for feeding our large urban populations. In any case, the important question is not whether animal flesh could be produced without suffering, but whether the flesh we are considering buying was produced without suffering. Unless we can be confident that it was, the principle of equal consideration of interests implies that it was wrong to sacrifice important interests of the animal in order to satisfy less important interests of our own; consequently we should boycott the end result of this process (Singer, Peter, 1993, Practical Ethics 2nd Edition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.). The term “morality” can be used either: 1.) descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or, a. some other group, such as a religion, or b. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or 2.) normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons. How morality is defined plays a crucial, although often unacknowledged, role in formulating ethical theories. To take “morality” to refer to an actually existing code of conduct is quite likely to lead to some form of relativism. Among those who use “morality” normatively, different specifications of the conditions under which all rational persons would put forward a code of conduct result in different kinds of moral theories. To claim that “morality” in the normative sense does not have any referent, that is, to claim that there is no code of conduct that, under any plausible specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons, results in moral skepticism. Thus, although, not widely discussed, the definition of morality has great significance for moral theory (Wallace, G. and Walker, A. D. M. eds., 1970, The Definition of Morality, London: Methuen).
Posted on: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 19:17:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015