Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum
The hard problems of vegetarianism - Printable Version

+- Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum (https://www.scivillage.com)
+-- Forum: Science (https://www.scivillage.com/forum-61.html)
+--- Forum: Alternative Theories (https://www.scivillage.com/forum-130.html)
+--- Thread: The hard problems of vegetarianism (/thread-10263.html)



The hard problems of vegetarianism - C C - May 1, 2021

https://quillette.com/2021/04/29/the-hard-problems-of-vegetarianism/

EXCERPT: . . . So far, I have not discussed the different philosophical arguments that are typically advanced in favor of animal welfare. This is partly because their strengths and weaknesses have already been examined at length elsewhere. The other reason is that I believe, despite all their differences, they all collapse into a version of utilitarian consequentialism in some non-trivial sense.

Our understanding of animals’ mental capacities has advanced tremendously since the days of Descartes’s “soulless machines.” However, decades of research have not brought us much closer to a subjective understanding of what is going on inside the head of a pig, a cow, or a dog. As Thomas Nagel famously argued, while we can understand how bats use echolocation to navigate, we do not understand what it is like to be a bat. We can, albeit with some difficulty, put ourselves in someone else’s shoes, but not in a horse’s hoofs, so to speak. Absent the experience of an animal’s qualia, we rely on somewhat crude behavioral observations to judge how our actions affect them. Pain and pleasure, joy and sadness are at least in principle observable, and they are typically used to justify who does and doesn’t count as a “moral patient.” Even those non-utilitarian theorists who hold that animal lives are intrinsically valuable will draw the line somewhere, and will not demand that bugs or amoebas be awarded the same rights as humans.

Now, if some form of utilitarianism underlies all animal welfare theories, the notion that animals’ interests need to be taken into account can be challenged by denying that the utilitarian calculus can be meaningfully applied across species. All it takes is to argue that we are not only quantitatively, but also qualitatively different from non-human animals. Both human and non-human animals suffer pain, yet presumably only humans are able to anticipate it, reflect upon it, and live their lives in dread of it. You can psychologically abuse and torture human beings, but you wouldn’t be able to achieve the same results with animals. Although far from the only reason for punishing criminals—we convict murderers even if the victim did not see it coming, died instantly and painlessly, and is not survived by grieving relatives—the mental landscape matters to ethical judgements. Those judgements, after all, are products of the mind as well, and thus differential treatment may well be justified.

The typical rejoinder points to what came to be known as marginal cases. There are humans whose mental capacities are extremely impaired for one reason or another, yet we emphatically refuse to treat them the way we treat cattle, pigs, or chickens. (Nor should we—saying that animals deserve to be treated better than we currently do does not imply that we should treat humans worse!) The problem with the argument from marginal cases is a different one: Firstly, while it is true that some humans lack the full conscious experience to which an ordinary member of the species has access, it is also true that there are no “super-feline” cats whose cognitive capacities are way above the typical repertoire—the situation is not symmetrical.

What does that mean? By treating animals (purely based on species affiliation) in psychologically damaging ways, we do not risk traumatizing them accidentally. Doing the same to people with intellectual disabilities, we cannot be so sure. This is a kind of consequentialist argument for speciesism, according to which, species membership is used as a proxy for a creature’s cognitive architecture. How much force it carries depends on how sure you are that an animal’s inner life is indeed qualitatively different from that of an average human.

Secondly, humans with severe brain damage will generally still be interwoven into the fabric of society, and other people will have a personal stake in their well-being, just like they have a stake in the well-being of their pet. Whether or not this justifies vastly different treatment is a tough question, but we have a strong inclination to treat human beings as ends in themselves.

For the good of whom?

But let’s move away from thought experiments and speculations. Let’s assume that we had, by divine revelation or other suitable means, collectively come to realize that vegetarianism is the correct philosophy. Even then, problems remain for which the vegetarian framework doesn’t provide obvious answers... (MORE - details)


RE: The hard problems of vegetarianism - confused2 - May 8, 2021

From the article cited in the OP.:

For communist luminaries, the utopian society was one in which the very concept of class had withered away. Like most of its predecessors, this version of utopianism suffered from a lack of dynamism. It was static in the sense..

WTF?

If veggies are communists they should be rooted out and .. Mother of God.. one can only take so much nonsense in a day.


RE: The hard problems of vegetarianism - C C - May 8, 2021

(May 8, 2021 12:06 AM)confused2 Wrote: From the article cited in the OP.:

For communist luminaries, the utopian society was one in which the very concept of class had withered away. Like most of its predecessors, this version of utopianism suffered from a lack of dynamism. It was static in the sense..

WTF?

If veggies are communists they should be rooted out and .. Mother of God.. one can only take so much nonsense in a day.

That paragraph deals with why "we now use the word 'utopian' almost synonymously with unrealistic, detached from reality, or just plain crazy". Of which communism was a selected example among presumably many candidates of history.

Afterwards a suggestion was made that "a committed animal advocate" is pursuing some form of utopia (in the generic sense). Regardless of whether that's the case or not, such can be distinct from vegetarianism. Although animal activism and vegetarianism can converge (just as the former can intersect with religion), minimal vegetarianism does not entail embracing an animal activism movement (it's a contingent association).

Scholars do consider vegetarianism to be an ideology and a social movement when it revolves around the ethics of eating meat (thus this article's wielding of the label). Otherwise, however, it is a dietary practice, wherein politics and academic philosophy are not necessary features.

Apparently there have been utopian zealots in history who championed vegetarian dietary practice, but similarly this was an intersection of distinct orientations.

Nietzsche's sister: "In 1886, a German colonist couple, Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche and Bernhard Förster, emigrated to the Paraguayan rainforest and founded Nueva Germania to put to practice utopian ideas about vegetarianism and the superiority of the Aryan race, though the vegetarian aspect would prove short-lived. " ... (History of vegetarianism)


RE: The hard problems of vegetarianism - confused2 - May 9, 2021

It's like when you have a persistent fashion for (say) wearing feathers. The ones that don't (wear feathers) stand out and indeed you could write a history of weirdos not wearing feathers. Kind of missing the point that Its the feathers that are the weird thing.


RE: The hard problems of vegetarianism - stryder - May 9, 2021

I was a vegetarian from about 1985, and moved to veganism when the world caught up and started producing products I could eat.
To me it was a personal choice, not based upon fashion (at that point in there wasn't much in the way of veggy foods available, apart from the soya that could be found at healthfood stores)

I never liked meat, it's taste, it's texture, the knowledge of what it was and always considered how ingesting a different species is what tends to bridge our species to be closer to each other enough so as to allow various retroviruses to develop. I always considered that you couldn't really get a virus from a carrot, okay maybe bacteria food poisoning if it started to turn, or perhaps something like ecoli if it's not been looked after well.

In this day and age, there is actually a term for it Avoidant Restrictive Food Intake Disorder (ARFID)

Throughout my years there have been instances which can only be described as pure horror, when something being chewed on isn't what its suppose to be, or if the taste/texture is wrong. The reaction might be a little OCD, but it feels like a complete violation which in turn is enforced further from my bodies own inability to process bacterias associated with meat related produce. (So I don't just feel sick, I end up actually being sick.) This means I don't eat out due to cross contaminations fears even when others want to (unless it's a vegan restaurant) Thats due to how many times places have cross contaminated either accidentally or on purpose (worst bit is I'm not a complainer when it comes to screwups, I just will never eat there again, so it's not a retaliation aimed at a militant veggy).

I mention all this because while I'm strict and disciplined in regards to my dietary habits, I don't force it on others (albeit some might feel that way if they subconsciously take it upon themselves to change their eating habits for me without telling me, however I'm willing just to "sit that one out" if the people who I'm with want to go for a meal somewhere.)

My roots and reasoning to how I got here though differs from the fashion victims, the shunners, the shills and shrews. Thats an entire culture I find alien, yet I can't completely complain since their sudden engagement and numbers has increased my available food sources. If it's veggie form of Communism that keeps me fed then I can't completely complain, although to be honest it's more likely Capitalism since the pricing is more expensive than if it was Organic. To think they take an ingredient out and charge more.

(Incidentally the vegan/veggy foods weren't hit as hard during the first panick buying, I guess all the cosmetic/fashion struck/weekend veggies bought the cheaper meat products up first)


RE: The hard problems of vegetarianism - Zinjanthropos - May 10, 2021

From a Google page: “Fish isn't considered meat because English and Latin are slightly different languages. For hundreds of years Catholics were not allowed to eat meat on Friday. But the language of the church is Latin, and what Catholics were not allowed to eat is 'carne' which is the flesh of creatures from the land or the sky.”

Even a one day vegetarian edict doesn’t mean you have to restrict your eating to include only peas and carrots, if you’re a Catholic. Personally I would give a strict Catholic better odds to survive in the wild than a strict vegetarian or someone who’s body/mind does not allow them to eat meat for fear of becoming deathly ill (sorry Stryder). Yet I think a certain percentage of declared vegetarians would, in extremis, eat meat including their own kind.

African hunting dogs are supposedly clean, quick and efficient killers. To do this they have to rip open living prey and pierce the vitals. No choke holds, just tear apart. But it’s like that almost everywhere there’s prey and predator. Are people more emotionally involved with their food these days? If so, why is that happening? Meat eaters seem to be less traumatized by the thought of killing an animal or plant for food. Vegetarians have no qualms re killing plants.