3 ms·
What a stupid paper. The whole point of "ethical consequentialist vegetarianism" is to allow for an untouched wild domain where animals can suffer in a way cons
by glibgil 10y ago
What a stupid paper. The whole point of "ethical consequentialist vegetarianism" is to allow for an untouched wild domain where animals can suffer in a way consistent with environment and evolution. Becoming a human vegetarian is, after all, consistent with environment and evolution. We can be vegetarian from an evolutionary position and we maybe should be vegetarian from an environmental position (i.e. our high population)
- schoen 10y ago"Nature" and "natural" are very culturally salient in vegetarianism over all (when I travel, I look for a "natural foods" store, where I might then buy highly processed foods like Daiya...!), but I think in philosophical debates "suffering" has been more controversial. I don't think the significance of "natural" suffering has been accepted by western philosophy, or at least people would then have a significant debate about what it means for something to be natural! Consequentialism in particular I think is very averse to arguments that natural things are good or OK. Quite a few philosophical consequentialists are interested in radically anti-nature views like transhumanism because of the idea that we can do much better than nature has.
- glibgil 10y agoI didn't mention nature, but rather domain, environment, and evolution. The goodness of the action of vegetarianism is that one species limits interference of other species in their own domain, consistent with their environment and evolution.