Puritan Rovers vs Hedonist United
Responding to my post a couple of days ago on sweet schools, Chris Bishop commented:
the puritanical left of the green movement which tries to tell people what to do with their lives (don’t smoke, esp. in bars and cafes, don’t eat fast food, lets ban the advertising, in schools, etc). Moral puritanism at its worst.
There is a better side to the green movement which consists of allowing personal freedom (e.g to smoke pot). It’s a say day when the puritanical side holds sway as it seems to at the moment.
Chris echoes an observational theory of mine.
Political parties are by definition a largish cluster of people who have thrown a fence around a general brand and then tried to reach agreement within it on a range of issues. This is a fraught process because every one of us arrives at our personal politics by a different route. And then we place a differing level of priority upon eliminating doublethink in our own views and differing levels of success when we attempt it.
So, although a predominant leader will give the public impression of internal consistency, political parties contain a very wide range of opinions. Pretty much every member will disagree with some part of the policy platform or other, but will put up with it in the interests of pushing their own hobby horses or the party’s overall philosophy, or to realise their blind enthusiam for the leader.
When interpreting political parties, it is common for the media, and most of the populace, to describe the range of opinions they contain upon ‘left - right’ and ‘idealistic - pragmatic’ axes.
However the first tool that should be applied, IMHO, for describing what goes on in any political party is the one Chris alludes to - the puritan - tolerant / hedonist axis.
Every party has, to a greater or lesser degree, puritanical and tolerant wings. They are broadly but not precisely analogeous to the up-down axis in the Political Compass I mentioned a couple of weeks back. That is, the puritan will insist that the collective interest and / or a moral/metaphysical code of some sort extends into the individual’s zone of personal sovereignty to such a degree that they can be told what to do. The tolerant hedonist will argue that their body is their own and what they choose to do with it is their own business.
Of course, doublethink in this area is common; many people manage to be puritan on some issues and tolerant on others.
So here’s some questions for you all:
Should vegans be opposed to abortion?
Should anti-abortionists be opposed to meat eating?
Can people who are pro-choice on abortion be opposed to enthanasia?
Can a whisky drinker support the legal status of cannabis?
Should the views of a lifetime teetotaller be given any weight in deciding the legal status of any psychoactive substance?
Can households’ energy use be subject to rationing?
Do the interests of the fisherman on the Waitaki outweigh the interests of the jacuzzi owner on the North Shore? Or do the interests of the fish outweight both of them?
Any others???
November 1st, 2005 at 12:17 pm
Do the interests of legibility and correct spelling outweigh the need to post a blog entry before a certain arbitrary time?
November 1st, 2005 at 2:43 pm
Someone once defined puritanism as “the nagging suspicion that someone, somewhere, is having more fun than you”.
As a confirmed hedonist, some might think I would support the right to smoke in bars, but I’ve always advocated a smoking ban in public. Is that puritanism? Hardly. I support the right of someone to enjoy their vices as long as they don’t force those vices on others. I can drink a Martini without forcing it down the throat of someone next to me; but if they light up a fag, I have no choice but to share their rancid exhalations.
An interesting case came about with some researchers who wrote an article in the Listener about nicotine inhalers. Nicotine doesn’t actually do much damage compared to tar and all the other nasties in tobacco, and they certainly prevent other people from being affected, so why not let nicotine addicts get their fix that way? Of course, some people reacted with moral outrage: how dare you suggest feeding someone’s addiction rather than weaning them off it? Now _that’s_ puritanism!
November 1st, 2005 at 3:17 pm
I think that most political groups tolerance is only for things they more or less accept - the measure of tolerance is agreeing that activities you actively dislike should be allowed:
“Should vegans be opposed to abortion?”
*If* I was vegan and believed that foetuses were sentient beings,
I might oppose abortion for myself. I don’t however have the right (according to the above theory of tolerance) to prevent others from having an abortion (or eating animal products).
“Should anti-abortionists be opposed to meat eating?”
If I was one and believed in the inefficiency of meat production or the rights of animals then yes. As above, I don’t have the right to prevent others eating meat, though I might want to tax it more heavily.
“Can people who are pro-choice on abortion be opposed to enthanasia? ”
(Assuming one means voluntary euthasia as opposed to culling the old folks).
Again - they can hold the belief that they will not take their own life, but are not entitled to force that choice on others.
“Can a whisky drinker support the legal status of cannabis?”
Can’t see why not? My theory is that I am entitled to choose which drugs I consume, but not enforce that on others.
“Should the views of a lifetime teetotaller be given any weight in deciding the legal status of any psychoactive substance?”
Everyone’s views are entitled to weight in a democracy.
“Can households’ energy use be subject to rationing? ”
Only in extremis if other measures - like planning rules and taxation - fail.
“Do the interests of the fisherman on the Waitaki outweigh the interests of the jacuzzi owner on the North Shore? Or do the interests of the fish outweight both of them?”
They can and should be balanced.
And two others:
“Should advocacy for al-Qaida be criminalised? ”
No - people have the right to say what they like and the right not to listen.
“Should purchase of explosives for al-Qaida be legal?”
No - people have an overriding right not to be blown up!
November 1st, 2005 at 3:38 pm
Yes, it is useful to point out that the popular view of a puritan is someone who is against enjoyment because enjoyment is wrong, not someone who is against somebody dong something because someone alse will suffer.
For example with abortion and veganism, I firmly believe that animals are sentient beings with the same right to life as I have. I say the same for foetuses above a certain stage of development. Preventing meat eating or abortion (above a certain stage) is therefore at the same level as preventing murder or theft. Ie it is not just wrong for me, it is wrong and in the absence of special conditions (such as death from peritonitus in the case of abortion, or starvation in the case of meat eating) should be prevented
November 1st, 2005 at 10:59 pm
kiore1,
What would you feed pet cats and dogs? How would you stop the food chain in the natural habitat? Or are only humans, not supposed to not eat meat?
This goes onto the questions - liberty of choice and collective morality/regulation.
We tend to hunt (be one of the many predators) and to raise up flocks (we mange the fertility and cull when we do). We also “inter-act” for reasons other than fertility - thus fertility is an unintended consequence on occasion (of personal choice).
The question in abortion, is collective conscience/morality/regulation and imposing an obligation on someone to carry a child to term - whether they want to raise it up, or not.
Some have an absolutist focus on “right to life”, but won’t support using taxes for better health services for the poor - locally or internationally. They really mean that women (and partner) should face certain risks in having sex without intention to procreate (they usually mean extra-marital sex, ignoring the fact many abortions also involve married people). It is thus a judgment on the sexual behaviour of those involved, using the unborn one as a
modern vehicle for guilt and judgment.
Clinton said it best - legal, rare and affordable.
This means abstinence and responsibility when acting. The problem is that people use condoms as contraception (even when drunk - women should drink less when fertile to reduce risk). Condoms can work, even on a long term use basis - but only if rhythm method abstinence applies when the female is fertile. Otherwise it’s pill and condoms with uncertain partners.
November 1st, 2005 at 11:05 pm
“Should vegans be opposed to abortion?”
If they want to. (but I wouldn’t be opposed to abortion)
“Should anti-abortionists be opposed to meat eating?”
If they want to (but I wouldn’t be opposed to meat eating)
“Can people who are pro-choice on abortion be opposed to enthanasia?”
If they want to ( but I wouldn’t be opposed to euthenasia ).
“Can a whisky drinker support the legal status of cannabis?”
If they want to ( but I wouldn’t support legalisation of cannabis )
“Should the views of a lifetime teetotaller be given any weight in deciding the legal status of any psychoactive substance?”
Yes.
“Can households’ energy use be subject to rationing?”
Yes.
“Do the interests of the fisherman on the Waitaki outweigh the interests of the jacuzzi owner on the North Shore? Or do the interests of the fish outweight both of them?”
The fish win.
Here is a question for you:
What is wrong with double-think given that ethical questions don’t have objectively correct answers?
November 2nd, 2005 at 10:03 am
I am getting the standard anti-vegan arguments from all the meat addicts who are desperately trying to justify their addiction. I tried them all myself when I first considered kicking the meat habit, and in the end decided that logical consistency compelled me to stop eating animals.
Cats and dogs: Obligate carnivores - no issue. Humans - not obligate carnivores, can be healthy without meat.
Should it be only humans who should not eat meat? Can’t comment - ask God. I am a human I can only speak from the human point of view. All moral theory is only concerned with what humans (and indeed morally aware humans) should do.
What about my freedom of choice to eat meat? Meat eating (or abortion) is no more about freedom of choice than any other moral issue. What about my “right” to rape, cut down rainforests, murder, have sex with children etc. Please be consistent in your arguments. Either all morality is relative, or none of it, or you have to give a logically coherent reason why some morality is relative and some is not. So far you have done none of the three.
November 2nd, 2005 at 11:01 am
Would you eat meat if it was grown in a lab and never part of a live animal?
November 2nd, 2005 at 11:59 am
How about this (topical Green) dilema:
Should someone who believes in Peak Oil drive an SUV or buy shares in Oil companies?
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:58 pm
The thing is Kiore1,
Some people are much more adapted to going without meat then others. For example they can get the protein from other sources and process it much better than others.
The thing about freedom of choice is that it can be used on moral issues that people can not agree on. For example, animals for a long time were considered in the Christian religion as not having a soul, and that makes it okay for them to be killed. If you could prove that they do have a soul, then freedom of choice is cancelled out. However, since people can not prove it people are free to choose what they believe and therefore whether it is okay to eat meat or not.
The same applies for abotion, since noone is sure when a foetus becomes a thinking or soulful being then it is up to people to decide. If you could fin out then, yes, it would be murder to abort a pregnancy.
As for the others, they violate other people’s rights, which are greater than freedom of choice. Rape, murder, peodophilia, all violate greater human rights than freedom of choice.
Our survival does not hinge on cutting down the rainforest, therefore the animal rights, and plant rights then become greater than the freedom of choice. With abortion, it can hurt the mother to go through the pregnancy so the issue is does the foetus have more rights. some say yes, some say no. same for meat issue
Sorry this maybe confusing. didn;t have time to go through it coherently
November 2nd, 2005 at 1:02 pm
No, someone who believes in peak oil should buy oil futures, presumably they would think shares would be not such a great investment. Or should have a little while ago - not sure what’s happened to futures recently.
November 2nd, 2005 at 1:34 pm
“Sorry this maybe confusing. didn;t have time to go through it coherently”
Well you are right there at least.
For one thing you are begging the question by assuming that it is only human rights that are important whereas that is the point under discussion. The point under discussion is that animals (or foetuses) have rights as well, and you may agree or disagree, but it is not simply a matter of personal choice. If animals (or foetuses) have rights then violating them is wrong. If they do not, then of course eating meat is a matter of personal choice, like eating onions (or eating a meat-like product from a laboratory).
And what have souls got to do with it? Most people probably believe humans do not have immortal souls in the way descibed by the Judeo-Christian tradition, but this does not mean they would deny human rights. Also lets remember that our moral views did not fall out of a Christmas cracker. It took thousands of years of moral deliberation before - even within the Christian tradition stating that all humans have immortal souls - the now widely accepted view that all humans have moral rights was accepted.
Two hundred years ago you would probably be telling me that it is purely a matter of personal choice whether you kept negro slaves and beat them occasionally.
If animals have no immortal soul and humans do then that is an argument for treating them _better_ than humans because this is the only life they have.
November 2nd, 2005 at 2:14 pm
Whether you say soul, higher intelligence, whatever it still comes to the same thing.
Also we all know that animals have rights, the question is how important are these rights. There are so many rights that humans have, but occasionally we cant exercise one, because it will violate someone elses more important right. An example would be, someone having the freedom of choice, people are not allowed to exercise that in the case of being able to rape someone, because they are violating the other person’s right to not be hurt, which in this case is considered more important.
The case about soul or higher intelligenc, is that people consider an animals right based on whether they are “worthy” of it. Many people believe that their right to do what they want is more important than the animals rights. Some people believe that our biology, and the fact we are “suited” to eating meat, overrides the animals right to life, especially if they dont like veges. Since there is not consensus on whether an animal does have right to life and not to be hurt, then it is up to people to exercise their freedom of choice, and they will do so untill there is law against it.
It took so long to change peoples views on racism, and disability. It will take even longer to change their views to do with animals, especially because of the biology comonent suggesting we’re supposed to eat animals. Until there is proof that animals deserve equal rights people will continue to do what they want. Same with foetus’s. Are the rights of the mother more important than those of the baby? Many people think yes, and until majority think no, freedom of choice will reign.
Just so you know, I do believe that the right not to be hurt is an inherent right that animals have and would never have an abortion, and i tell people that. However, ultimatley it is their choice. The majority decide what is moral because we live in a democracy, and only when the majority is swayed will the morality change.
November 2nd, 2005 at 3:19 pm
Now the question I have, since we are ALL going to die (I don’t think God is in the readership, even if it does exist), how is it we have a “right” to life?
This isn’t well stated… the right is actually to NOT have that life taken from us unjustly. However, there is no animal that respects that right, with respect to us or to other animals. There is some anthropomorphizing going on here and some really slippery concepts need to be nailed down if you are going to assert EITHER side of this as being correct. The anthropomorphizing has to do with the perception of the future. Some animals can, some can’t… bacteria have no idea… (yet another similarity to politicians). What about an egg?
Simply - I don’t think that this abstract concept of “not being unjustly robbed of my future” otherwise stated as “right to life” can be easily extended into the animal kingdom without some concession being made to the nature and stage of development of the animals in question.
Veganism has much stronger grounds with respect to health and resource use, both of which support it quite strongly. Animal rights issues however, need to be addressed with more sophistication. I see several people here addressing “Rights” as though they are binary (have/not have) rather than matters of degree. Something I have learned in programming and SW however is that the real world is continuous and binary logic is only suited to the peculiar machines with which I work.
respectfully
BJ
November 2nd, 2005 at 3:31 pm
Actually the majority do not _decide_ what is moral. If that was the case, then you would have to conclude that slavery was moral 200 years ago and not now. The majority (and indeed all moral agents when they are acting rationally) _act on what they believe is moral_ which is totally different. If one takes the view that there are moral principles that are not simply a matter of opinion (eg. “torturing babies is wrong”), then one needs to then give a coherent reason as to why some moral principles _are_ simply matters of opinion.
To say that there is doubt as to whether animals should be given rights, is not the same as to say that it is simpy a matter of opinion. By the same token, to say that there is doubt as to whether the orthodox Darwinian theory of evolution is true, is not to say that the truth in this debate is simply a matter of choice, so whatever choice you make you will be right. Either the orthodox view is true or it is not.
And in fact, among philosophers (those who are actually trained to think logically and coherently about moral issues), there is now little disagreement about the rights of animals. Even theologians are now swinging away from the view that “dominion” means tyranny.
The philsophical and theological case has now been largely won, that only leaves the political battle. And given the entrenched interests of the animal based industries, their political power, the addiction to meat among westerners and general resistance to changing the status quo, this will actually be the hardest battle. But eventually we will win it.
One reason I support the Green Party is that it is the only party that actually takes animals seriously enough to have a seperate animal welfare policy and to actually advocate some positive changes to benefit animals.
November 2nd, 2005 at 8:47 pm
kiore
Is morality imposed by law?
Anyone can define a moral position, the question of law is convincing a majority (or those who decide for the people otherwise), whether to enforce it through law.
It could be argued that all sexual activity could result in pregnancy and children did best when raised by birth parent couples in committed relationships - thus the moral position was to restrict sexual activity to within marriage, ban divorce and require couples who were fertile to raise up their children, or adopt them out to infertile couples.
This of course takes us back to the moral order that existed across centuries, when there was no majoritarian democracy or freedom of religion/choice (provided no other human being was harmed).
Was the old order overtaken by “sex addiction”, once enabled by popular demand governmen.
On the vegan issue - I am reminded of the end of hunter-gatherer society age and the beginning of crops and flocks. The pastoralist was associated with murderering the man who ate meat. I simply note the issue of law and moral force - many Nazis were vegetarians and they had no problem with the judgment of other people.
My point is the goal of ending meat consumption, is like the goal of eliminating sex for reasons other than procreation, because we don’t need to do it. Humans unlike others, do not have seasons for mating. Like other primates, we are omnivores - are humans the only omnivores to be restricted from eating meat?
It seems confused to have a programme of protecting the natural habitat, while expecting humanity to rise above it’s kind, because “it’s dominion” does not give it “special rights”.
So I ask whose morality and why impose it by law?
November 2nd, 2005 at 9:00 pm
kiore:
Forgive me as I haven’t read all of your posts but something did grab me about this last one of yours. You compared Darwinian evolution with animal rights as if the truth about both can be discovered in the same way - as you say by thinking logically and coherently. As a scientist (who happens to support animal rights) I would have to argue that they are in fact very different. On the one hand Darwinian evolution is a testable hypothesis. Natural selection makes specific predictions about the future that can be tested (and in fact part of my research involves modeling Darwinian evolution in viruses, such as H5N1 bird flu, which evolve extraodinarily rapidly. Science is used to attempt to predict how H5N1 will evolve in the future).
Natural selection comes about through the interaction of the (1) laws of physics, (2) living things that can replicate, and (3) limited resources. If you have those things then natural selection will happen, whether or not you like it. That is a scientific hypothesis that can be tested. Natural selection is not right or wrong, it just occurs - it is an intrinsic feature of life on Earth.
Likewise, the concept of animal rights does exist, but only by virtue of the people that believe in them. Animal rights do not exist outside people’s minds. If no people believed that animals had rights, then they would not (at least in the eyes of humans).
You say that philosophers largely agree that animals should have rights. By philosophers, I assume you mean ethicists such as Peter Singer. I agree it is true that a large number of ethicists agree that some level of rights should be afforded to animals, but this is not a scientific hypothesis, it is a logical conclusion based on a set of moral axioms. As you say, given an appropriate starting point, and thinking logically and coherently, animal rights will be the conclusion. However, that appropriate starting place, i.e. those moral axioms, are free to be chosen. They are made up. For example the Ten Commandments are a set of moral axioms (though probably not the set that Peter Singer used to arrive at his conclusions).
Once the axioms are decided on, then logic can be applied to them and you can arrive at answers to moral issues. But if you change the axioms then the logic will bring you to a different answer. So when you say philosophers all agree on animal rights, you really mean that philosophers all agree on a set of moral axioms. But these axioms ARE just opinion. They may be very good opinion (i.e. they make for a pleasant and smooth society when most people live by them), but nevertheless, they are not an intrinsic and immutable part of our universe. Whereas the principles of Gravity and Natural Selection are intrinsic features of life on Earth. If humans disappeared from the planet, then so would animal rights, whereas Gravity and Natural Selection would remain.
This is not an argument that animal rights are not important. Its actually an argument that animal rights are MORE important than Gravity and Natural Selection. They are more important, because they are our *choice* — and in my opinion a very good and important choice for us to make.
November 2nd, 2005 at 10:31 pm
Thank you Alexei… someone did need to make that point, and you did it better than I might have - respectfully BJ
November 2nd, 2005 at 10:58 pm
Yes, I completely agree with Alexei. Well done.
November 3rd, 2005 at 10:34 am
Alexei
Cool; a _real_ discussion!
As someone who has also published on philsophy of biology I can say that not all sicentists agree that the Darwinian theory is the correct one. But as can be seen from your post, all are convinced of the truth of their own theory, regardless of whether others agree.
And this is the same with philosophical theories. Scientists, mathematicians and philosophers use different methods, but all aim at the truth, not opinion. If it is just your opinion that natural selection is true, as it is my opinion that ginger beer is the tastiest cool drink, or that brunettes are sexier than blondes, then you would have no motivation to communicate your view to others or to do any research to convince others.
November 3rd, 2005 at 11:39 am
kiore1;
does that make empirical philosophy less theoretical than scientific theory?
I do broadly agree with Alexei, and congratulations, posters, we’ve kept the journo’s from the right wing fended off by using the expensive part of the dictionary!! This was great to read after a few days off doing lots of physical/not philosophical things..
cheers, katie
November 3rd, 2005 at 2:37 pm
kiore
How would you define the difference between moral position and truth?
In practice, the problem in imposing moral positions in law, is that one has to convince the majority that it needs to be done. Freedom of choice applies, unless there is some higher value or need of the group involved.
Convincing people that meat is an addiction, is like convincing people that non procreative sex is an addiction. A hard sell.
Convincing people that non renewable resources need better use management on conservation grounds alone (the needs of future generations) and also global warming grounds, is hard (because of commercial market self interest and this generation’s consumer self interest), but doable. Convincing people that there would be better land use management, if “less” meat was eaten, is possible. But the “imperative” for it would only occur, if population grew to the point that there was a “peak oil type scenario” in the feeding of the humanity (any scientific truth on this?).
There are sure grounds in regard to “dominion” being consistent with responsibility for global habitat responsibility AND some code of behaviour in regard to animals.
November 3rd, 2005 at 4:29 pm
SPC - Peak Food? We’re talking about something that is related to everything else, and the carrying capacity of the planet surely has a limit past which we travel at our peril. Most here are convinced that we are already in perilous times… particularly if peak-oil reduces (as it surely threatens to reduce) our ability to grow food and transport food in quantities enough to feed billions of people. So there probably IS an imperative coming along down the road, and its unlikely to be recognized when it comes. Countries will trip over it and stumble into war and any question about eating meat will be overwhelmed by the larger immorality.
Kiore - Philosophers have argued themselves into their preferred corners for centuries and never really been able to understand why the rest of us won’t join them there. I have reasons for eating less meat, even NO meat, but none of them have to do with the right of the animals in question. Rights are not binary and they are, as others here have pointed out, strictly constructs OF our intelligence, not “natural”. How is it we have constructed the concept at all?
Rights are the basis of our civil society. They are the basis of our ability to cooperate and function as a group rather than as individuals. Primitive societies functioned on the basis that “might makes right” and in this regard one can see the USA as having regressed to a more primitive level of social justice. More civilized societies are a result of more sophisticated concepts of rights.
Against this background I can only conclude that the evolution of the idea of rights for animals is valid to the extent that it allows people to coexist with other species and with each other. In other words, show me the utility. There is SOME, as alluded to in the argument about eco-footprint and carrying capacity, and the concept has some gut level appeal even to me…. but it has no power to persuade me that the pepperoni pizza I am inhaling is fundamentally immoral.
As before, I respect an animal’s life in relation to its apparent intelligence. Dogs and Cats and Chimps and Dolphins are more important than chickens and salmon and sheep, and these are more important than mosquitoes and locusts and worms… all have SOME rights, and I won’t step on an ant if I notice and I have fished countless spiders from the sink, but rights aren’t what that’s about. More like a duty than a right to be honoured. A dolphin, or a dog or a cat or a chimp may well offer aid to a human in trouble. People have died trying to save wild animals. This is a social thing but the bonding is related to intelligence. It is not something that is a philosophically provable “right”. It is an evolutionary development of civilization.
And now, back to the pizza - ach! While I was typing it was eaten!
Hunger is a great test of philosophies.
respectfully
BJ
November 3rd, 2005 at 8:26 pm
bjchip,
“SPC - Peak Food?”
At a certain population level, there comes the issue of how much land is used to feed meat to consumers - if there is too little growing other land capacity to supply other food to others on the planet. When there is no food reserve when famines occur. Not because we don’t provide the aid - when there is no more land food capability.
This may also be part of a wider land and water use issue.
The peak oil concept is not just about non renewable energy, its about a range of conservation/use issues.
I see the market as resolving the energy problem - though there are hard landing issues. We can mitigate against that with good planning now. We amy not - but when oil reaches higher price levels - alternatives will become commercially viable.
I have no great issue with food transport - exporting. Some areas will always import food - within nations or between them. This requires transport. Food aid is premised on it. The third world benefits from free trade in agriculture. It’s the rest of us who benefit under the current order - where for every $2 the rich make in trade with them - we give $2 in aid.
November 3rd, 2005 at 8:31 pm
PS
I suspect the food security concept is behind the arguement against food trade. A European way to justify their CAP policy - which the POW as spokesperson for hunting and farming Tory set now signs onto.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:14 am
BJ appears to denigrate philosophers in his last post, but then offers a philosophical position. The position he offers did not come from a Christmas cracker but is one that has been formulated, discussed and improved by (among others) Hobbs and Hume. Similarly, Alexei could not be so confident in the power of science as truth unless philosophers of science had set the ground work as far as what is and what is not valid epistemology. Whether you realise it or not, our world view is influenced by philosophers past and present.
There also appears to be some confusion about what is choice. Of course on a purely factual level one has a choice whether to eat meat. One also has a choice about whether to be a paedophile in that we are not hard wired so that it is impossible to commit an immoral act.
What I object to is the patronising assumption that eating meat is wrong for me if I choose to make it wrong, and right for you if you choose to make it right. We can no more have a personal morality than a personal theory of evolution. This does not of course mean that everyone agrees on the theory of evolution any more than everyone agrees on moral issues. Some moral issues are more widely accepted than others (slavery for example is almost universally condemned) but again this view has not always been self evident, but was only reached after centuries of argument by philosophers, scientists nad theologians.
Perhaps I have misunderstood previous posters and they are not refering to choice in meaning morality is simply a matter of opinion, in which case it is not an issue. But anyone who really thinks that morality is just what you choose would not be comfortable in a political party. The Green Party (like all parties with integrity) exists to enforce its views on the general population. In spite of having only 5% of the vote it obtained significant policy concessions. It demanded these concessions because its members believed they were right, and I agree that they had a moral right (and indeed a moral duty) to do so.
Similarly, when questioned about sticking to its drug policy in spite of it costing votes, a spokesperson said that we do what is right, not what is expedient. This is to me not just good ethics, it is sound epistemology. Everyone should act on what they believe to be right, even if later evidence shows them to be wrong.
And in the case of animal rights, this means using all means possible to persuade others that I am right, and to prevent animal suffering. It does not mean just letting people torture animals in laboratories and slaughter houses because they think it is right, so it is right for them.
If I later change my mind in the light of new evidence or new ways of looking at old evidence, and become convinced that eating meat should be compulsory (not a ridiculous notion - some people called George Bernard Shaw a traitor for not eating meat), then equally I must concentrate all my efforts in doing so.
November 4th, 2005 at 8:46 pm
kiore
“What I object to is the patronising assumption that eating meat is wrong for me if I choose to make it wrong, and right for you if you choose to make it right. We can no more have a personal morality than a personal theory of evolution.”
Obviously you argue this line, because you support a
public morality established through the imposition of law. This supports the contention of some Catholics, that secular humanism is a rival religion, challenging it for the rule of peoples and nations. The current Pope, poses the revealed truth of the bible word as reason.
Where I disagree with you, is in your posing moral positions as related to a truth. This is the position of a theocrat, in that it poses that there is a knowledge of what is moral truth.
Acceptance of different individual moral choices is not patronising, it is of the co-existence of equal individuals - and speaks to the issue of freedom of religion (most of us don’t see our moral position choices, as reflecting a revealed to man truth).
“Perhaps I have misunderstood previous posters and they are not refering to choice in meaning morality is simply a matter of opinion, in which case it is not an issue. But anyone who really thinks that morality is just what you choose would not be comfortable in a political party. The Green Party (like all parties with integrity) exists to enforce its views on the general population. In spite of having only 5% of the vote it obtained significant policy concessions. It demanded these concessions because its members believed they were right, and I agree that they had a moral right (and indeed a moral duty) to do so.”
Well this also allows moral duty and moral right, to be claimed by all political parties. Which then disassociates moral right, from any one version of what is true. Thus reducing truth down to belief - which then speaks to why, we allow each other equality in determining our own moral choices (most of us don’t see our moral position choices, as reflecting a revealed to man truth).
Public law exists to regulate society behaviour - it no longer claims that moral truth of a divine right throne is involved in this.
Certainly the idea of, imposing a moral cause truth through public law, is not the most common way of describing party political activism.
Regarding changes in public law/morality (more a case of an emerging acceptance of human equality within a democracy), slavery could be more easily “condemned” when serfdom and the fuedal order ended. Much like much of our current depletion of non renewable energy and associated global warming, can be condemned when powerful commercial interests find the market conditions suit them to do so. The same may apply on meat-eating, if the land involved is required for another use (but note water availability and terrain may also limit the growing of food on this land). Then it would be necessary for us to pose a moral basis for our higher evolutionary development (call our loss of meat-eating a step forward for humanity). Till then animal rights - are covered by natural habitat protection movements and regulation of animal treatment laws.
This all speaks to the issue of moral position and its being imposed by “law”. But even this does not make the law - an enforced moral truth - but a way of regulating society behaviour (different nation states have different laws, regardless of what moral position “truth” held undermines them).
Until morality, is imposed as a revealed truth by a restored theocratic government, it is either of a “truth” known to the individual, or of an ethical choice of an individual.
November 5th, 2005 at 3:32 pm
“Obviously you argue this line, because you support a
public morality established through the imposition of law”
Obviously most of us agree that the law should be used to back up something they genuinely believe is wrong, until it comes to something they disagree with. Who does not support a law imposing the majority opinion that paedophilia is wrong? Who does not support the full force of the law backing up the protection of all humans from assault? But when you come acrosss something you don’t agree with, you start being patronising and mentioning choice. Or else you beg the question by simply assuming without discussion that imposition of law should apply only to violations of _human_ rights.
And as I have mentioned before, the fact that an idea is not universally agreed upon does not make it any less true. All truths (ethical, scientific and epistemological) that are now considered self evident started as theories.
I have been accused of preventing freedom of choice when conducting quite legal protests against factory farming, vivisection and other activities that I consider quite wrong (though not by anyone on this blog I must add). What about the choice for the hens, pigs, laboratory animals et al.? Why does their choice not count?
But I can see why people use the choice idea. If they had to tell me I am simply wrong, misguided or insane they would have to produce arguments to back up their views. But mouthing platitudes about “choice” allows them to feel good, while not really being foced to think about issues at all.
I would far prefer it if everyone would simply tell me I am wrong (and why) instead of being patronising. I don’t accept that I know all truth. I may be wrong. If I am then it is up to you to give me reasons why I am, not to evade the question with waffle about everyone being right and morality simply being a matter of choice. I have changed my mind in the past on a number of moral issues. But I have changed it after being confronted with evidence and cogent argument, not patronising nonsense.
November 5th, 2005 at 4:55 pm
KIore1
The fact that an idea or theory is not universally disagreed on does not make it any less false either. The question however, is the basis on which you determine the truth value and truth values are not binary.
Aristotelian logic is a seductive but erroneous approximation of reality. It is easy to program, and easy to reason with, but it gives only black and white answers, and the world is painted in living colour, approximated by shades of gray, and desperately difficult to render in mere black and white.
Animal rights (or duties) activists hang on a black and white rendition of a very neutral shade of gray. It is a mistake to do this… but the error is not in your logic, or the facts, but the form of the logic you are applying to the issue. Use the logic of the world, not the logic of Aristotle.
Not saying you’re wrong, just saying that the absolutism in which the arguments seem to be framed is wrong.
respectfully
BJ
November 5th, 2005 at 6:01 pm
kiore,
Public law, is not simply the morality of the majority. As you note, we allow (”minorities”) human rights. We also tolerate choice, we allow tobacco smoking as choice, even though we try and discourage it. There is nothing “patronising” about this regard for right of personal choice. It is acceptance that we no longer have a ruling divine right throne declaring a revealed truth to mankind which is then imposed on the world.
The case against tobacco smoking is made, the case against meat eating can be made - to ensure informed choice.
kiore But mouthing platitudes about “choice� allows them to feel good, while not really being foced to think about issues at all.
You want a right thing to do/wrong thing to do, dynamic to apply on this issue. So that your choice (what is important to you) becomes an issue of right or wrong for others. Thus arguing for using public law to impose this right/truth/world view on others. Your line of action is better focused on animal rights (public policy regulation of treatment) and informed choice of consumers.
kiore I would far prefer it if everyone would simply tell me I am wrong (and why) instead of being patronising. I don’t accept that I know all truth. I may be wrong. If I am then it is up to you to give me reasons why I am, not to evade the question with waffle about everyone being right and morality simply being a matter of choice. I have changed my mind in the past on a number of moral issues. But I have changed it after being confronted with evidence and cogent argument, not patronising nonsense.
There is nothing wrong with concern about animal rights, but also nothing necessarily right about what particular public policy you would apply to resolve this. Arguement is made against some of your supporting arguements. This is not a position of our truth vs your error on the wider issue. How is eating meat wrong, how is eating meat right? How is not eating meat right, how is eating meat wrong?
The way forward on the issue, is making consumers informed about animal treatment issues. And also trying to make regulation a public policy issue. I don’t see any public policy on meat-eating until either - land use becomes an issue, or until the sanctity of human life results in humanity focusing on ending death sentence law, abortion, war, third world famine and disease.
November 5th, 2005 at 6:09 pm
“How is NOT eating meat wrong, how is eating meat right? How is not eating meat right, how is eating meat wrong?”
I realise you argue that animals should not be killed for food, when we could eat other food. But while animal treatment is an issue for consumers and public policy, I see the sanctity of human life cause as pre-dominant for some time yet, as to moral right and wrong (thus ending meat-eating as public policy, following on from this, or when land use imperatives come into play - which also speaks to the issue of affordable food sustaining the lives of humans).