RE: Is Eating Meat Philosophically Consistent with Non-violence?
I appreciate your perspective (and it's basically the one I hold on to as well), but as the video explains, that's essentially the same as saying, "Well, yep, I'm okay with speciesism."
Most definitely not! Speciesism, by definition, is a prejudice which is not backed by any "morally relevant differences." Yet I back my conclusion with the assertion that creatures which are incapable of moral reasoning have no moral standing or privilege. It is absurd to grant animals moral privileges while simultaneously holding them exempt from moral responsibility.
But we do. We ascribe rights to babies (even unborn ones!) who clearly can't claim them.
Why do you say babies can't claim rights? Give them some time, and they'll be able to claim them just fine. Rights do not change over time, thus if the adult has a right to life, so too must the baby.
As mentioned in the video, some animals have more cognitive abilities than humans (such as Koko compared to a one or two year old or someone with severe learning or mental disabilities).
Some animals have greater intelligence than some humans, but what of it? Intelligence is necessary, but not sufficient, to claim moral standing.
At the same time, what if a dolphin was like, "Anyone who can echo-locate with sonar can have rights. Screw everyone else."
As I said before, if dolphins were capable of such a feat, I would happily contend that they have rights, because they can construct an argument that they do. The theoretical dolphin you cite, however, is guilty of speciesism as echo-location is not a morally relevant difference. ;)
Haha, okay, fair enough. It's possible your views would change if we were to encounter aliens who were far superior to our own understanding and the veil of ignorance lent us to consider how we'd want them to treat us. Thankfully there are no aliens around today. Also, apes like Koko, given some time, could also claim a level of preference and rights. Just as we socialize human babies to learn those skills, we can (to a much lesser degree, admittedly) socialize highly intelligent non-human animals.
Argumentation is a uniquely human construct. Pain and suffering is not. If our moral framework accounts for not doing harm to living things which can experience harm (we're not Janists after all), then I'll argue the level of conscious awareness should play into our moral framework and have some influence on our actions. It's not immoral to kill a mosquito, but as a society we recognize strangling a dog is evil and wrong.
That said, I essentially agree with your argument or, at the very least, it aligns with the story I tell myself in order to enjoy my ribeye steak. :)
Thanks for the healthy discussion.
It certainly is possible, but I note that my philosophical framework was designed specifically with such an eventuality in mind, and so far as I know, it is consistent even in the face of such a being.
Certainly an ape can be trained to string symbols together, which could be interpreted by a human as a claim of rights; however, those symbols would mean nothing to the ape except perhaps it would expect a reward for having performed as instructed. Human babies, however, left completely untaught or socialized, will still develop language (cases of this have been observed and documented). It is thus logical to conclude that they will also develop complex and abstract thought, creativity, etc. and would be capable of creating original arguments as to why they should not harm each other.
Agreed.
Ahh, but what is harm? Can you come up with a definition of harm, which is not based on a NTS fallacy, which does not invoke a human to assign the meaning of "harm" to an action? If I throw a brick through a window, have I caused harm? Only a human can decide that. If a doctor amputates your leg, has he harmed you? Only you can decide that. If a lion kills and eats a gazelle, has it caused harm? If I kill and eat a gazelle, have I caused harm? The concept of "harm" is uniquely human.
In nature, the lion eats the gazelle, and the world operates in beautiful, perpetual harmony. If the lion does not eat the gazelle, cycles begin to destabilize, patterns are broken, and ecosystems cease to exist. Yet in the absence of humans, who can say whether it's better for the lion to eat the gazelle, and perpetuate life, or to "respect the gazelle's rights" and end life? Neither the lion, nor the gazelle, nor Koko the ape are capable of expressing a preference.
But can you consistently argue why strangling the dog is wrong, but killing the mosquito is not? I posit that it's not necessarily wrong to strangle a dog. It's interesting to note that, done properly, strangulation is one of the fastest and most painless ways to kill a mammal. Being strangled isn't pleasant, but it's not what I would call painful either, and it's quite brief. There are far worse ways to go.
Well, at least you're being philosophically consistent. The challenge with that view relates to how we, as a tribal, social species, likes to build relationships based on virtue signals, trust, contractual agreements, shared value of wellbeing, etc.
To be okay with causing a conscious being pain (this is something which can be measured in the brain, along with the reactions of the living thing being hurt, so maybe "harm" wasn't the best word) creates an ethical challenge. We describe sociopaths as people who don't have a "normal" functioning of empathy, compassion, mirror neuron use, etc, etc. Sociopaths don't care about hurting animals (or humans, for that matter). They are not trusted by most in society because of our shared value in increasing wellbeing (i.e. not causing pain when it can be avoided).
At this point we're probably getting to the "is / ought" problem. From my perspective, you're arguing for an evolutionary stable society as being "ideal" for us (and life in general). I can't really disagree with that and I love this video on the topic:
At the same time, we can control our environment. If we want to decrease suffering for conscious beings, we can. Should we? Should we limit that to just humans? Is painfully killing a dog wrong only because another human might claim "ownership" of that dog?
I'd love to do a Google Hangout or something to dive into these conversations more. I so enjoy them. :)