7 ms·
I'm a long-term vegetarian animal rights supporter and I support the publication of work like this, even though many people take it as a sort of anti-vegetarian
by schoen 10y ago
I'm a long-term vegetarian animal rights supporter and I support the publication of work like this, even though many people take it as a sort of anti-vegetarian propaganda, because I think this is how we make progress in understanding issues!
Very often in academic philosophy people write papers that say "relatively widespread position X seems to have weird consequence Y", which then provides possible evidence against X, possible evidence in favor of Y, or an opportunity to think about why the implication might be unsound. That helps clarify how we think about things. (Toby Ord wrote a similar paper about opposition to abortion where he pointed out that spontaneous abortion, especially before people are aware of the pregnancy, is much more common than induced abortion, so maybe many abortion opponents should be concerned with medical research on how to prevent it. While Ord seemingly thought the modus tollens side of this argument was stronger, ... maybe they should!)
Although I don't embrace the act/omissions symmetry that the theory here is based on, I support the modus ponens side of the argument that wild animals' suffering is a horrific thing that it would be good to find a way to mitigate. This has led to some pretty long flamewars in the past; I remember a particular incident when the "Tetrapod Zoology" blog discovered David Pearce, a transhumanist who sees it as urgent (and feasible) to re-engineer nature to eliminate all suffering. Fireworks ensued.
Overall, I don't think this argument is particularly new. I heard substantially the same point presented as an anti-vegetarian argument at least 15 years ago. At the time I thought "predators aren't moral agents, accidents aren't moral agents, there's no wrongdoing here, there's no problem". But now I think there is a problem after all, even if it isn't our "responsibility" or "obligation" to solve it.
- cjbprime 10y agoHi Seth! I'm reminded of an Aaron Swartz story that I suppose we could share: == During my first few years in Cambridge, Aaron was one of my favorite people to scheme with. We started and — then usually abandoned — a whole string of projects. We would argue for hours and hours about sociology, economics, technology, and ethics. I remember one time I took Aaron to the Boston vegetarian food festival to see a talk by Peter Singer who is an ethicist at Princeton who many people credit as the intellectual founder of the modern animal rights movement. Aaron went to ask Singer if we (humans) have an ethical obligation to keep animals from hurting each other? As Aaron approached Singer, I sort of shrunk back a little bit. Embarrassed. The question just seemed, I don't know, “troll-ish” and I figured it would just annoy Singer. But, to my surprise, Singer sighed, thought for a bit, and said something like, “yes, if we can do it without causing more suffering in the process, I suppose we should.” That that's the Aaron I knew. A recklessly creative intellectual refusing to be hemmed in by what most of us take for granted. And in that process, always thinking about the greater good. -- Benjamin Mako Hill, https://mako.cc/talks/20130311-bmh-aaron_swartz_memorial_remarks.html https://mako.cc/talks/20130311-bmh-aaron_swartz_memorial_rem...
- schoen 10y agoHi Chris! That's a great story. Thanks.
- CuriouslyC 10y agoPredators are in a sense moral agents - assuming you accept that maintaining equilibrium of the system in which they exist is good - because without predators prey invariably destroy their habitats.
- DominikPeters 10y ago"Moral agents" are usually taken to be those beings that can make moral judgements. Wikipedia says: 'Moral agency is an individual's ability to make moral judgments based on some notion of right and wrong and to be held accountable for these actions. A moral agent is "a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong."' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_agency)
- pera 10y agoI understand your point, but don't you think that referring to "ethical consequentialist vegetarians" as "consistent vegetarians" or simply "vegetarians" is a bit dishonest? I'm also a long-term vegetarian and animal rights supporter, same my family and many of my friends; I think I have never met an ethical consequentialist vegetarian in my entire life... I believe this article says more about consequentialism than vegetarianism in "general" (if there is such a thing).
- schoen 10y agoThis article appeared in an academic philosophy journal, so maybe the background expectations there are a bit different. Consequentialism may be a (much?) more widespread position among academic philosophers than among the general public. I agree with your observation and other people's observation here that it doesn't really reflect on "vegetarianism" worldwide, or necessarily meant to. For example, in Singapore I met tons of religious vegetarians who didn't necessarily have any commitments one way or another about these academic debates, and of course in the U.S. there are lots of folks who hope it will help with their weight or cardiovascular health or something.