Have you ever Stepped on a nail and not felt it–then: Pain Strikes you. You’ve been standing on the nail for a minute, but because you had your mind focused on the hottie walking by, you didn’t notice it. This is revealing. It reveals that pain (the phenomenological pain) is a process of higher order functions. The “I” becomes aware of the of the pain and then it becomes “I-pain”. In psychology, there is a distinction between aversive reactions and physiological response to a stimuli and the phenomenological pain response to a stimuli. Aversive reactions can take place without pain, but are many times accompanied by pain—emotional or physical, which are processed in the same area of the brain (see last months Scientific American). Now, humans and higher order animals can feel pain, but lower order animals may not feel phenomenological pain because they don’t have the “I” concept or the ability the higher order brain functions to process suffering as anything more than a stimuli and response. When we talk about ethics with animals, we should consider degrees of suffering.
You might ask “How do you know lower animals don’t suffer?”; well, I know what the necessary conditions for phenomenological pain in the human brain are, and I see them in some animals and not others, so I can say that I have a rational reason to believe that a chimp feels pain as I do, and a chicken does not because the chimp has the necessary conditions for phenomenological pain, and the chicken does not have the necessary conditions. Pain requires higher level function. Chickens do not have higher level, more associative functions, so they don’t have pain—or there is no reason to assume that they do. If we start assuming that they do, then we could also assume that when I slap a tree it feels pain or when I cut a piece of neuronal tissue in a petri dish it suffers.
Now, consider, If I torture a Vegan and then torture a chimp, I have probably done something seriously immoral in both situations—however, something is is much more wrong in case of the Vegan. The chimp is alone, doesn’t have higher order associations of “I” in culture, “I” in future, “I” in family or “I” in all of them and all of them in “I”; Because, it lacks higher order categories that come from language. It probably only feels, “‘I’ must escape, and endorphin/epinephrine rush, if the “I” doesn’t break down all together in the face of the chemical rush because of the lack of other associations. The Vegan’s “I” is more complicated, stronger, and capable of more “I” pain. He faces the “I” morally, the “I” spatially, the “I” linguistically, the “I” as self conscious field, the “I” culturally and the “I” within his kinship and friendship units. He is a stable “I” able to own his pain and multiple kinds of phenomenological pain, and there seems to be no escape from the pressure of “I” as found in those concepts. The Vegan is pressed as if by book ends into a unit by concepts.
I assert that when we consider the morals of animal suffering, there should be a consideration of the degrees of subjectivity. The same way that I don’t assume slapping a tree or cutting a piece of tissue is torture, I shouldn’t assume that butchering a chicken is the same as butchering a Vegan. There is simply no reason to assume that a chicken feels phenomenological pain. The aversive response is not enough. Science and ethics should unite on this front to discover which animals have the necessary conditions for phenomenological pain and protecting them.
Yes indeed. Science should be a tool of the philosopher.
I know it is a straw man, but I seemed to be acutely aware of the dependence on behaviorism of this post and I thought I would note it.
I should admit that I agree with you though.
Still, I find it troubling that behavior is often what we will rely upon for our deductions. Whether I am reasonable in this desire or not, I desire further comprehensive evidence that compliments the behavior.
This is, by far, your most interesting post, Joel. Thanks for posting it. I’ve never thought about this before.
I have one question though:
Even if animals don’t feel phenomenological pain, should we still kill them or butcher them?
A human’s experience of pain isn’t the only reason to refrain from killing them right?
Suppose that I kill someone in their sleep, and that their death is entirely painless. It seems unlikely that my murder is ethically justifiable simply because they didn’t feel the pain.
Why, then, should I think that the lack of “I-pain” in animals is grounds to justify killing them?
A different answer to Kevin.
Aside from the direct issue of physical pain. It is in the nature of the concepts of the self that we are considering that they integrate the person through time. Therefore when one kills a human being, even painlessly, one is destroying some particular person. This does not seem to be the case for chickens, who on this thesis lack the possibility of an enduring I and exist only in the moment.
This also relates to the ‘philosophically induced’ pain so characteristic of the human condition. For example if you secretly serve some meat product to a vegan (or pork to an orthodox Jew/Muslim) and only tell them after they have eaten and said what a wonderful meal it was, they will likely feel hurt (and violated).
Kevin:
To be really simple: The “We”. Just because that guy dies in his sleep doesn’t mean he dies painlessly. Humans are social animals and the loss of one person can be worse than the most intense torture for family and friends. We are all single individuals but we are also a network of always conscious life. Part of what constitutes each individual are kin and friends who all share in conscious life. So in some sense, the man is never asleep.
And, I don’t think this justifies killing of animals. There are reasons not to butcher animals. But, mostly they are pragmatically social. I think that this is one foundational aspect of how we should view ethics involving animals.
You are leaving out so many aspects or factors to why eating meat is considered immoral. It’s not JUST that vegans care about animals. There are many important reasons that you should take into account from a humancentric perspective as well.
If we are simply weighing pros and cons “it’s tasty” is the only pro and it is subjective. Also It’s not the only thing that is tasty and it’s not necessary or healthy.
So there is 1 subjective pro.
to like 4 – 6 objective cons.
Cons are:
1. It’s not good for you or your family (especially not in the amounts that most people eat it)
Professor T. Colin Campbell PhD — Animal protein (meat and dairy) causes cancer:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1308977765978236346#
But the list of diseases besides cancer known to be associated with meat looks like the index of a medical textbook.
Anaemia, appendicitis, arthritis, constipation, diabetes, gall stones, gout, high blood pressure, indigestion, obesity, piles, strokes, and varicose veins are just some of the well known disorders which are more likely to affect meat eaters than vegetarians.
2. It causes world hunger (makes the rich ill and the poor hungry)
Feed the World – Why eating meat is a major cause of world hunger – by Jeremy Rifkin:
http://www.facebook.com/notes/david-long/feed-the-world-why-eating-meat-is-a-major-cause-of-world-hunger-by-jeremy-rifkin/268901009859
3. It’s one of the most harmful things to the environment and ecosystem. (I could give so many sub examples on this one, i could have broken it down into 3 separate reasons but i won’t in order to be brief) But even at it’s best it is still unsustainable to produce animals for food. (they eat WAY more then they produce)
I will leave out the part about animal rights, but I will say that WE are animals. The main difference between us and them is that we have the ability to communicate by creating and manipulating symbols. All sentient creatures avoid pain and seek pleasure. This is the basis for our morality and I think we should care about the feelings of other creatures if they can speak or not.
To me morality is based on:
Long Term – sustainability matters because it has to do with human survival into the future. (being responsible to our context.)
Short Term – Avoiding causing unnecessary harm.
Meat fails both tests of ethics.
However I am not an absolutist I am a pragmatist.
The main point is to weigh pros and cons and try for the greatest depth for the greatest span.
Ken Wilber – The Greatest Depth for The Greatest Span 1:
Ken Wilber – The Greatest Depth for The Greatest Span 2:
In a way if you listen to this video it kind of validates your point to a degree especially part 2. (but it doesn’t really factor in these other aspects either and that would definitely be a part of weighing depth and span.)
In some situations eating meat would be an ok thing to do depending, but for me that circumstance would be a truly rare one, and is not part of my normal life because eating meat is not necessary.
I wouldn’t say eating meat is always unethical, but normally it is.
It’s about the how and why, not the what.
That being said i think “because I like it” is not a good reason when it comes to suffering and degradation all over the planet.
What is an ethical reason to kill something?
If I have to kill in self defense to stay alive I will. If it is absolutely necessary.
To me it has to be life and death. It has to be absolutely necessary. “Because I felt like it” is not a good reason. Especially when we can easily choose to cause less suffering and still be satisfied both in terms of what will taste good and what will be good for our bodies.
I will not say that we are not “omnivores, at the top of the food chain” and I will not say that it was “bad” that our “ancestors killed and ate meat without any regret or remorse”, I will just say that we live in a different world today.
The virtues of the past become the vices of today. What was good for groups of people in the world thousands of years ago is not necessarily good for people today. (Primitive people did all kinds of disgusting and irrational things, that doesn’t mean we should keep doing them.)
Today we have major over population and resource problems. Humanity would need five Earths to produce the resources needed if everyone lived like the average american, according to a report issued in 2009.
A vegan/vegetarian is still an omnivore. He/she is just an omnivore who thinks he/she is making an ethical choice for the good of the planet, and their own personal health.
Also there is no need to be an “extreme vegan”. It depends on why you are vegan in the first place. If it is about sustainability and suffering then there are ways things like eggs could be ok.
I would still be interested in the research though. Thanx for your thoughts.
David,
Not to incite your vegetarian and/or vegan religious sensibilities, but much of your ‘information’ is bogus, in particular Dr. Campbell’s lame ass study.
For some critiques, start here: http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/
and here: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=385
I have seen data on the long-term sustainability of animal food production and the issue is far from settled (as you may not like to believe).
“All sentient creatures avoid pain and seek pleasure. This is the basis for our morality and I think we should care about the feelings of other creatures if they can speak or not.”
Mr. Bentham was incorrect and so are you. Provide some argument as to why pleasure and pain are the basis of morality, and furthermore provide an argument why the capacity for non-human animals to experience pleasure and pain should constrain human actions.
“2. It causes world hunger (makes the rich ill and the poor hungry)”
No, large-scale animal food production does not cause world hunger. That is, there is no good evidence to suggest that it does. Animals are NOT being fed grain otherwise meant for humans. In fact, food shortages are much more closely associated with government policies than animal food production. See, e.g., Zimbabwe and the government mandated use of ethanol in U.S. gasoline production, to name only two instances.
Add Jeremy Rifkin to the foray and what we have here is a palpable offering of confirmatory information.
“Today we have major over population and resource problems. Humanity would need five Earths to produce the resources needed if everyone lived like the average american, according to a report issued in 2009.”
Here we have another gem, of the neo-Malthusian sort. Hold technology and technological innovation constant at your own peril, David.
What is the answer to overpopulation?
What about free distribution of birth control?
What about free abortions up to 12 weeks?
What about free visectimies and free tube tying?
There is no good reason to believe that the planet is over populated. Most (all?) arguments which have over population as their conclusion are premised upon faulty assumptions, distorted logic, economic ignorance, and ideological preconceptions which make such conclusions attractive.
Aaah… I see now that you put those words in quotes. YOU were not saying that the planet is overpopulated.
Aaron:
Something you said is very wrong—if I understand you correctly. “Hold technology and technological innovation constant at your own peril, David.” When faced with a clear and present danger, and overpopulation is undebatable problem, a hypothetical solution is never the answer. Future tech is hypothetical. David is correct in some of his information. I spent quite a bit of time researching this topic. The UN’s inter agency documents talk about talk about the struggle over land, water and food shortages that are linked not to politics but to shortage. Many fledgling democracies are almost doomed to failure because of shortages such as these. Animals are indeed part of the problem.
This hypothetical solution to clear problems, the Technology will save us mentality, is rampant and intuitive—However: It’s wrong. Immagine if we did this with sexually transmitted diseases: “I’ll have all the unprotected sex I want; we’re so close to a cure for STIs. Why do anything when I can wait for a cure and do what I want ?”. Hypothetical technology is not a solution to a growing problem; it’s a copout. It allows us to go and do what we want because we thing one day we’ll be able to make a proper band-aid. It is not remotely a sure outcome that we will be able to fix the damage we’ve done. It may be unfixable.
I’ll quote one of my old papers on my blog:
See paper on http://jodajo.wordpress.com/ for citations.
We live in a closed system. Overpopulation and misuse of resources are a clear and present danger. To call upon technology is no better than to call upon God—it’s an act of complete faith. So, to rephrase you for impact: Hold the level of technology’s and technological innovation’s growth constant at your own peril, Aaron. The uncertain god of Tech may not come through.
David:
I did not say this condoned the consumption of meat. There are many reason that we should find a way not be as we are now. However, meat is a very large of people’s life. It plays social significance, religious significance and it is just so damn good. You must ask yourself why there is such a drive for meat. It is reasonable that some people eat meat because it is a biological imperative. Some may be more predatory in their appetites biologically. They may get needed chemicals from meat that they can’t get from plants. Some people simply can’t break down certain nutrients to make them usable. Meat offers ready made nutrients—already broken down. And all I am saying here is hypothetical. However, what I am asserting is not. Meat consumption is not a simple do or don’t, moral issue. If people are going to stop eating meat as a population, then the people who care should start coming up with feasible alternative options.
Thanks Joel. This analogy made a lot of sense to me. And I have indeed heard people say those kinds of things. I LOVE this blog! Thanks to everyone that offers up great insight.
forward from post:
This hypothetical solution to clear problems, the Technology will save us mentality, is rampant and intuitive—however: It’s wrong. Imagine if we did this with sexually transmitted diseases: “I’ll have all the unprotected sex I want; we’re so close to a cure for STIs. Why do anything when I can wait for a cure and do what I want?”. Hypothetical technology is not a solution to a growing problem; it’s a copout. It allows us to go and do what we want because we thing one day we’ll be able to make a proper band-aid. It is not remotely a sure outcome that we will be able to fix the damage we’ve done. It may be unfixable.
To all:
We can’t talk about “what is moral” If we haven’t defined morality. Otherwise people will just keep moving the goal post.
If we don’t agree on a standard about what it means to be moral we are basically just saying what we like, and calling it moral.
Before we can ever agree about a moral decision we have to agree on the standard and the end to which we are projecting.
I am saying “good” decisions are sustainable ones, that don’t cause unnecessary harm. To the end of a peaceful balanced symbiotic relationship with our environment and each other.
Do you have a problem with that or a better standard and end for what you think morality should be based on?
Joel:
I wanted to respond to your points out of respect for the argument, but first please make sure you deal with my above question “what is moral” because that is at the core of this whole topic.
you say “meat is a very large part of people’s life. It plays social significance, religious significance and it is just so damn good.”
I already said the only pro is a subjective one. “People Like it” is not a good justification. I could use your same example in terms of justifying slavery.
A slave owner could have said “Slavery is a very large part of people’s life. It plays social significance, religious significance, and it is just so damn good.”
It’s basically the same argument. Your seeing something you perceive as other or different as “Less than” instead of just different. And so you justify objectifying them based on personal preference.
Can we reduce morality to personal preference? I don’t think so.
to say it’s ok to kill based on the standard of “phenomenological suffering” is holding animals to human standards to justify their importance. That is just humancentirc preferential self bias.
You ask “why there is such a drive for meat?”
Cultural conditioning. Why is there such a drive for violence and war? Because we do it and have always done it it’s good? What we have a drive to do is always good?
you say “It is reasonable that some people eat meat because it is a biological imperative.”
If you remember my short term standard for morality was “Avoiding causing unnecessary harm.”
Now, you are claiming that “some people eat meat because it is a biological imperative.”
biological imperative = Necessary
If this was the case, you would still want to try and eat meat in the most sustainable way you could, however this is not the case. Eating meat is not a biological imperative. If you have evidence that this is the case I would love to see it but, I know plenty of healthy vegans that live the contrary.
In some places it might be an ecological imperative to eat some meat. Like high mountain regions or cold Arctic regions, but that seems more like a practical problem then a biological one, and in most of those cases it seems like the means they have to get food are more sustainable. Hunting, fishing, and keeping grazing animals.
you say “They may get needed chemicals from meat that they can’t get from plants.”
only a couple of things and you can take supplements.
you say “Some people simply can’t break down certain nutrients to make them usable.”
OK who? what nutrients? why/how is this relevant?
you say “Meat offers ready made nutrients—already broken down.”
based on what? I don’t think this is true.
you say “And all I am saying here is hypothetical.”
You mean you don’t know if any of it is actually true? You are just pulling these claims out of the air?
you say “Meat consumption is not a simple do or don’t, moral issue.”
Is anything a do or don’t moral issue? I am not talking about blacks and whites I am talking about doing our best. Weighing pros and cons, depth and span.
Which is basically what I think you are intuitively trying to do above in your main point. I am only saying that you are not factoring in enough variables.
I see it all as shades of grey. Eating sustainable meat is better then factory farmed meat, but eating No meat is better then eating “sustainable meat”.
In some situations eating meat would be an ok thing to do depending, but for me, living in america, that circumstance would be a truly rare one, and is not part of my normal life because eating meat is not necessary. I wouldn’t say eating meat is always unethical, but normally it is.
It’s about the how and why, not the what.
What is an ethical reason to kill something?
To me it has to be life and death. It has to be absolutely necessary. “Because I felt like it” is not a good reason when it comes to suffering and degradation all over the planet. Especially when we can easily choose to cause less suffering and still be satisfied both in terms of what will taste good and what will be good for our bodies.
Wouldn’t it always be better (in terms of causing less suffering and maybe personal health as well) to eat some broccoli (assuming the broccoli is also sustainable and organic) as apposed to a chicken? I think the answer is obviously yes, but I am open to what ever logical reason you may have to disagree.
you say “If people are going to stop eating meat as a population, then the people who care should start coming up with feasible alternative options.”
There are plenty of feasible alternative options. How do you think these people live? You can find or learn to make most anything you want vegan. The ones who know what they are doing eat food that tastes good, is good for their health, and good for the planet. I honestly think that subjective pro of “it tastes good” is the main motivation behind most peoples negative reaction. BUT just because these people don’t know of any thing better doesn’t mean their is not an objective better. (and it should be equally as good if not better in terms of subjective taste as well. I wouldn’t encourage anyone to eat food they don’t like and I wouldn’t ask anyone to change their life habits over night. Changing diet abruptly is not healthy nor does it stick if you don’t learn how to eat veg or vegan well. Health is not just about what you don’t eat but what you do eat as well. i know a vegetarian who eat mostly chips and that is not healthy. So veg doesn’t always = healthy)
Check out some of the food my wife and I make/eat:
Awesome Vegan Food:
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?id=671927653&aid=134906
Most people I know who are veg or vegan didn’t really discover food as an art until they went veg and had to learn how to cook. Also most of us eat foods that many meat eaters have no idea exist. Often from other cultures.
Maybe these options need to be made more available and on that point I would agree with you.
It’s hard to be a moral citizen in an immoral society because all the options in front of you will be immoral ones. We all drive cars and pay taxes and these things are bad. Unfortunately right now for most of us these things are absolutely necessary. All we can do is our personal best. No one is perfect, but we should have agreed upon standards to an agreed upon end.
David:
Morality is a motivation not a solid standard. Granted we may have certain foggy standards wired into us, but it isn’t anything but a human drive. There isn’t some overarching morality. Although, I do think that morality has a predictable pattern through time. So it’s got a developmental path. When I talk about morality, I am talking about what I see as the developmental path, and expanding circule of encompassing concerns, that the human fusion of social construction, social-unity and emotional (causal underpinnings) drives create. I think morality is an emergent property built on instincts and the qualitative.
You seem to believe in an absolute morality and believe that you have found the right one. In one aspect, I think you are right because I believe you represent the greater encompassing compassion—to other animals—that i think is at least one developmental move that human society is moving towards. In another, I think you are wrong: the is no absolute overarching, real, standard that overlooks and demands attention in human life.
And, you are right. That could be used to justify slavery. And, in some sense it does. In another it does not. I am not trying to justify it. I have no need to justify eating meat. Mine is a pragmatic point. If you want people to stop eating meat, find a way to keep them from doing it that makes them feel like it is their choice to stop. Find something that doesn’t attack their appetites, but, instead, tries to assuage without them knowing that’s whats happening. If you care about the animals take the pragmatic route. It is a double wammy, like slavery. If southerners had no way of keeping their way of life intact, they NEVER would have given up slaves.
You say:
I am saying: That is all that matters. That is the only way that there is any way that animals aren’t just our toys of preference; our standards will be what gives them rights, deference or compassion.
You say:
I’ve lived as a vegetarian on multiple occasions. I cook quite frequently and am pretty good at it. On several occasions I had to develop grocery list and food list—through lots of research—and cook those foods for vegans and vegetarians. However, I remember I could never get full. I was never satisfied–ever. And, it definitely gave me a wider culinary insight. It shows me something about vegans and vegetarians, they seem to have a much weaker desire for meat because they can makes statements like this, comparing broccoli and meat. And, my above examples, the ones about nutrition, were hypothetical but not pulled from thin air. I have a fairly strong biology background. I just don’t have the references. Or want to look for them.
You say:
We determine what is moral or moral based on instincts, group interaction and language. One person in a society is not more moral in that time than another; however, there may be some sense in which a person is less moral in time—like a compassionate slave owner would be highly immoral in our time, but highly moral and compassionate in his time—the model Christian.
(I didn’t know we could reply like this.. I definitely like the format of this web site. I also like how it posts the video and not just the link.)
Joel:
Thanx for dealing with the moral argument. I appreciate that. It feels like you are actually trying to understand and deal with my position logically. That may seem like it goes without saying, but it seems to be far too rare. So thank you.
you say “Morality is a motivation not a solid standard.”
This is just because you haven’t thought about it enough to set or agree upon standards yet. It’s like people claiming they can know truth by intuition, not realizing there are much more accurate, practical, rational ways, and because their standards are vague and based on preference all types of BS seeps in because they don’t have a good filter. They don’t know any better. Same thing here. You just haven’t seen or figured out how to deal with all the factors yet. (that takes time for sure, because it is a refinement process. I am still figuring out the particulars myself.)
Basically it seems like you are reducing relative morality to your subjective preferences, feelings, or motivations.
Are you saying you decide what is good based on “how you feel”? How is that a good guide when we also have motivations towards violence? Violence, hate, and war are often considered the opposite of compassion/morality, and yet these are also human feelings, or motivations that both often stem from passion, fear, and often love. How do you tell the difference between a skillful moral way of expressing these motivations as apposed to a harmful, negative, immoral way of expressing these motivations? This goes back to setting a mental standard or definition working towards an end.
I think caring people should feel motivated to set and explain good standards to good ends.
if to you “Morality is a motivation not a solid standard” then you can’t make moral claims/judgments. If we can’t define morality then we can’t talk about what is moral and what is not. – That means you will probably justify whatever you do. Is that good? If everyone lived by that standard (which unfortunately many people do) our ecosystems and our systems of government would start collapsing (which seems to be in the works). Broken down systems can’t help anyone, and in many cases they can’t support life. Our goal shouldn’t be to tear down the systems (or at least not just that) but to build a better system based on more evolved moral and rational systems of discernment.
you say “You seem to believe in an absolute morality and believe that you have found the right one”
I don’t claim my morality is “right” or was handed down from on high. (unless by “on high” we mean handed down and refined over the years by philosophers. In that case my moral system might be the best, or most evolved pragmatic system so far.)
The question is “right for what”? Right to achieve the ends I said I was projecting too maybe, and to those ends (If you agree they should be the ends we work to) some things are going to be good and some thing’s will be bad.
“I am saying “good” decisions are sustainable ones, that don’t cause unnecessary harm, to the end of a peaceful, balanced, symbiotic, relationship with our environment, and the other living things in it.” This is not to say we will ever achieve our end of perfect balance. I am not saying that “one day humans will be perfect moral creatures, and our society will be a utopia”, BUT in the same way science is always refining and expanding, deeper and wider, so can our morals/standards and governments. We can achieve better and better over time. I am for that. Progress towards peace, health, balance, and survival/sustainability.
Some moral systems are objectively better then others to those ends. And those ends are objectively better for everything (including humans) then other ends. – I would think this is also an obvious logical statement.
I am a moral relativist. (that is why I am saying, you can’t say what is moral/good until you say “what it’s good for”.)
I am not talking about a meaningless flatland where everything and everyone is equal. From that perspective we couldn’t make judgments (some people are making the judgment the judgments are bad), but we do make judgments all the time, so we would be constantly living in a state of performative self contradiction, and reducing “the relative good” to what we like – subjective.
I am talking about Weighing depth and span and “what is good/moral” being relative to not only subjective internal feelings including the feelings of the “other” (like suffering), but also factoring in the tangible consequences of our actions in the exterior environment in it’s relative circumstances in time and place.
It is equally a misunderstanding of morality to reduce it to absolute objective fact/truth as it is to reduce it to your subjective preference. Morality is relative meaning dependent upon the circumstances and the factors.
obviously this is the exact opposite of absolute morality.
I am saying it would be good if humans can come to an agreed upon set of standards working towards an agreed upon end. (the most basic things we can all agree on)
It is not good that humans are all chasing their own ends because in doing so they are often not factoring in the objective consequences to our context. (So they are often not factoring in sustainability. They seem to be operating under the assumption that resources are unlimited.) This is also related to a flatland perspective of self. People are egocentric and not Ecocentric. They don’t see them selves as a part of the environment they see them selves as above it. ANd they don’t see the This is a limited humancentric perspective.
“Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not every man’s greed.” – Mahatma Gandhi
So Moral = good for what? For who? To what end? (relative)
If you kill all the jews or all beavers that is objectively bad for jews or beavers. Right? That is a logical fact. Would it not be helpful to factor in as much information and as many “others” as you can to decide what is OBJECTIVELY good or bad? Now imagine you are trying to factor in everything, seeing reality as a whole system that needs balancing. From this perspective we are not only factoring humans into our morality.
Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions:
What is Good is just as much of an objective claim as it is a intersubjective or subjective one. It’s both. So it’s relative.
you say “I think you are right because I believe you represent the greater encompassing compassion—to other animals—that i think is at least one developmental move that human society is moving towards. ”
I agree totally. I actually think we are very close to being on the same page.
Let me ask you: “What is the difference between Love and selfish desire?”
There are different levels of love that go along with different levels of cognitive development. The positive and helpful all embracing love we are looking for is Worldcentric/Kosmocentric Love, or love from the perspective of unity. (ecocentric) Still selfish desire, but from a higher perspective of self.
there is:
Ego centric identification/love/pride,
Tribe centric identification/love/pride,
Ethnocentric identification/love/pride,
Traditional/Conformist identification/love/pride,
Nationalist identification/love/pride,
Human centric identification/love/pride,
World centric identification/love/pride,
Kosmo centric identification/love/pride,
Identification/love/pride is important at all these levels, but how far it extends has to do with your cognitive development. (it has to do with how many perspectives you can take and hold, as well as how big your concept of self is.) Depth and Span are both important, but with greater depth comes the desire for more span, and vice versa.
In this way cognitive development is necessary for moral development.
The link between moral and cognitive development:
The more you understand the more you can care about.
Our understanding of “what is good” is based on our understanding of “what is true”. The better you understand truth the more moral you CAN be. Compassion = Understanding. This means limited understanding = limited caring = limited morality.
you say “We determine what is moral or good based on instincts, group interaction and language.”
I agree. And as ideas/understanding and circumstances evolve so does our idea of the good.
you say “Granted we may have certain foggy standards wired into us, but it isn’t anything but a human drive.”
“standards wired into us” I thought you were accusing ME of being a moral absolutist? How does that work?
you say “There isn’t some overarching morality. Although, I do think that morality has a predictable pattern through time. So it’s got a developmental path.”
I agree completely. That is the same thing I am saying above. I don’t think you can reduce compassion (which is what I am going to call that instinct) to a human attribute though. I think that Carl Sagan quote I posted below with the link to the debate proves this. (You should check it out if you haven’t already.)
So if anything maybe the “big brains” (we are so proud of having) can complicate things to the point where we can’t make decisions that other animals might find easy to make. Maybe our cultural conditioning has blinded us to what is obvious to those we think of as “less than”.
“humans are the best or most important” is one stage above the claim that “america is the greatest country in the world”.
you say “They seem to have a much weaker desire for meat because they can makes statements like this, comparing broccoli and meat.”
I was raised on meat and potatoes. Meat lovers pizza was my favorite. I like meat. I am not going to deny it tastes good and has a good texture. But as I have said over and over again “I like it” is not a “moral reason” to do something. There are more important things in the world them my personal subjective preferences.
Meat is not the only thing that tastes good. I am not denying my personal subjective preferences, In fact I am indulging them, I am just making more moral/ethical choices by eating something else that also tastes good, and is better for my personal health, and the world I live in.
Food is about getting the right tastes and texture combinations. I am not saying broccoli and meat are exactly equivalents, but broccoli can have a good texture that fulfills my drive to eat something chewy better then most meat substitutes. Also I wasn’t comparing broccoli and meat based on subjective standards of preference I was saying broccoli is obviously a choice that causes less suffering, and so it is better to that end.
you say “And, my above examples, the ones about nutrition, were hypothetical but not pulled from thin air. I have a fairly strong biology background. I just don’t have the references. Or want to look for them.”
ok, but until you want to back up your claims I will just see them as hypothetical, unfounded claims, you can’t back up. I would assume if you could back them up, you would.
you say “I was never satisfied–ever.”
That means you were not doing it right.
Also as I sad before it’s not healthy to switch eating habits overnight. If your body is used to getting and dealing with meat it is going to take some time to adjust to a vegan or veg diet.
you say “That is all that matters. That is the only way that there is any way that animals aren’t just our toys of preference; our standards will be what gives them rights, deference or compassion.”
Maybe so, but are your standards good ones? Good for who/what? To what end?
Is it possible the ends and standards I gave are objectively factually better for the ecosystem then other systems?. (that is the point behind it.)
What do you think?
IT took me WAY long to write and refine all of this….. I hope you can appreciate that, and not get overwhelmed or upset by it. I think this talk is great fun. I hope you are all enjoying it too.
David:
Ok, instead of trying to talk about everything in your last post, I will try to explicate my position, for I believe we agree more than disagree.
Simplified:
1)What is good is what is what benefits the individual.
2) What is good is what benefits the group of individuals because it promotes the group through time.
3) What unites these interest, of individual and group, are instincts, “moral” drives, certain kinds of social conditioning that takes place in the group and affectual feedback capabilities that allow us to empathize making other people our interest–despite any cost to us. Also, the hardwired neural circuitry that becomes permanent and unites all these human capacities which allows for making non-egocentric “moral” choices (I’m preparing a blog post about this later issue).
4) The prime human interest is human flourishing—which I will loosely define as an overal functioning, application, integration and stimulation of human sensory and cognitive faculties to create a affective flourishing or happiness.
5) An aspect of human flourishing is empathetic ability. The greater the discrimination and generalization of empathy the greater the development of that aspect of our flourishing.
6) Empathizing with animals that feel, or empathizing with animals that look like they feel, is a generalization that results in a greater affective flourishing of that cognitive faculty.
7) So, It is in human interest, the prime interest of flourishing, that we broaden the scope of our empathy because it will create greater development, complexity and activation of that cognitive, affective part of the human mind/brain.
World Interest:
There is a distinct problem of global interest and an individuals ability to follow that those global interest. It is true that our world is in danger from certain of our private, individual interest, like in consumption and reproduction, however, the individual cannot live in the global aspects of morality. It is too much.
People are limited by personality, energy, intelligence and time. It requires those with foresight to initiate whatever methods needed to make global-morality natural to the individual by keeping it from draining the limited resources—whether mental, temporal or physical—of the individual.
My point is that broadening the empathy of the individual is good, and stopping the individual from destroying to cooperate goods is good, but in order to that: leaders, by intelligence, persuasive ability and/or position, need to instantiate global cultural and market change that makes things like choosing meat-alternative better to the appetites of the individual than our current meat consuming ways.
You’re right that we need to ask what a moral is good for, but we need to ask how we make that moral good to the person, so they make the moral choice. There is a choice we must agree on corporately, politically, but that doesn’t always translate into individual action. People spout on about moral choices, but moral choices won’t have widespread applicability until smart people find a way to get the culture to love those choices.
Aaron,
I wanted to respond to your points out of respect for the argument, but first please make sure you deal with my above question “what is moral” because that is at the core of this whole topic.
you say “Not to incite your vegetarian and/or vegan religious sensibilities,”
Nice way to start. Your first sentence is trying to make me seem like a fanatic instead of a reasonable person, with reasonable concerns, weighing pros and cons, depth and span.
So, if you care about things like health, world hunger, and sustainability that is based on “religious sensibilities”? Like veganism is a superstition and not a rational ethical choice.
You say “but much of your ‘information’ is bogus, in particular Dr. Campbell’s lame ass study.”
I gave 3 reasons besides animal suffering and you dismiss them all based on focusing on half an argument.
I read your links.
Obviously any poison depends on the dose. Too much water will kill you.
I think Dr. Campbell’s point is that THE AMOUNT OF MEAT in the S.A.D. (standard american diet) is too much. These links are kinda strawmaning him. Either that, or he is not qualifying his statements well enough, or both. These links are basically arguing that it’s not a black and white “meat causes cancer” and “a vegan diet cures cancer”. I don’t think that is Dr. Campbell’s position. (nor is it mine)
But lets throw that whole part out. Just for argument sake I will say that Dr. Campbell’s information is not reliable. My point doesn’t rest on that half an aspect of a sub category, and it seems to have caused more confusion/distraction then it helped unfortunately, because you are off fighting strawmen instead of dealing with my actual point. (which was that there are several issues, and to act like the only moral concern is animal phenomenological suffering is WAY reductionist.)
I don’t see you disputing the part about it being correlated with “Anaemia, appendicitis, arthritis, constipation, diabetes, gall stones, gout, high blood pressure, indigestion, obesity, piles, strokes, and varicose veins.” And that makes my point 1 still a solid point
“1. It’s not good for you or your family (especially not in the amounts that most people eat it)”
I have never heard anyone deny point 3. “It’s one of the most harmful things to the environment and ecosystem.” That alone is HUGE, and is enough to make it immoral all by it’s self based on the standards I presented.
you say “I have seen data on the long-term sustainability of animal food production and the issue is far from settled (as you may not like to believe).”
you say “No, large-scale animal food production does not cause world hunger. That is, there is no good evidence to suggest that it does. Animals are NOT being fed grain otherwise meant for humans. In fact, food shortages are much more closely associated with government policies than animal food production.”
Well those are nice claims, but can you back any of that up with anything?
Government policies and animal food production are not necessarily mutually exclusive. They might both be a cause. In the same way our moral standards and worldview affect our actions our government policies effect the society. That would include health, economical, environmental, and ethical standards and that definitely includes animal food production.
you say “Animals are NOT being fed grain otherwise meant for humans.”
How do you know? Are you saying humans can’t eat grain? People are starving right? That grain couldn’t feed humans?
Areas of land have a limited amount of resources right?
If a person buys those resources because they have the money (which is basically might makes right) and feeds them to animals to raise the animal as food, that is a waste of limited resources, because the animals will consume much more then they produce, and those limited resources are often being relocated so they are no longer available to local people. The only time this is not the case is if the animals are local, free range eating grass, or are hunted/fished in a sustainable one at a time kind of way.
Yes, some meat can be “produced” in a sustainable way or a way that is not harmful to the environment. (before distribution) But you have to think about how much meat is actually sustainable and how much meat people consume.
I bet like 2% of meat is sustainable/organic
And most of it is D grade meat pumped with growth hormones, steroids and/or antibiotics.
So we have a small supply of sustainable meat and a huge demand for meat. There are many people who want to eat meat, and lets say we have decided that only sustainable meat is ethical (putting aside animal suffering and just focusing on human suffering and sustainability for now), that means their is not enough “ethical meat” to go around. That means we would all have to eat a lot less of it regardless. Just because there is not enough sustainable meat to feed people in the amounts that most people eat. So in that way our eating habits towards meat are not sustainable/ethical even if the meat we are eating is.
“All sentient creatures avoid pain and seek pleasure. This is the basis for our morality and I think we should care about the feelings of other creatures if they can speak or not.”
you say “Provide some argument as to why pleasure and pain are the basis of morality”
This is easy. Morality is based on compassion. We avoid pain and seek pleasure, and we notice that other animals do too. We don’t want to experience pain and so we as moral creatures try not to cause unnecessary pain to others out of compassion. But Compassion = Understanding. Limited Understanding = Limited Compassion. If you don’t see the other as important, like you, or even connected to you then you won’t care for them.
you say “and furthermore provide an argument why the capacity for non-human animals to experience pleasure and pain should constrain human actions.”
I think the whole point of this topic is taking into consideration the suffering of animals. Joel might be making the point that they don’t suffer in the same way, but no one is saying they don’t suffer, and people who have a value system higher then humancentric (a very limited perspective indeed) care about animals. Partially because WE ARE animals and we are not just individuals but a part of an intersubjective context and our environment. So to really care about humans (which is what I am arguing for in points 1-3) is to also care about the context in which the humans exist, and morality has to do with how we interact with our environment/context. We should have certain rights but we should also have certain responsibilities.
This goes back to setting a standard to an end.
What are your moral standards?
What do you think the goal of morality/ethics is?
How far do you extend your care? if you limited extending your care, why? Based on what standard, to what end? Why is that good? Good for who?
To all:
Now all that being said i offer up a video debate, and a quote, then I will pass it back to you all for your response:
PETA vice president Bruce Friedrich faced off against Wes Hopkin from the Harvard Speech and Parliamentary Debate Society to argue whether or not eating animals is ethical.
Is Eating Animals Ethical?: (11 parts)
I think there are good points on both sides here.
And the quote:
“Humans — who enslave, castrate, experiment on, and fillet other animals – — have had an understandable penchant for pretending animals do not feel pain. A sharp distinction between humans and “animals” is essential if we are to bend them to our will, wear them, eat them — without any disquieting tinges of guilt or regret. It is unseemly of us, who often behave so unfeelingly toward other animals, to contend that only humans can suffer. The behavior of other animals renders such pretensions specious. They are just too much like us.
In the annals of primate ethics, there are some accounts that have the ring of parable. In a laboratory setting, macaques were fed if they were willing to pull a chain and electrically shock an unrelated macaque whose agony was in plain view through a one-way mirror. Otherwise, they starved. After learning the ropes, the monkeys frequently refused to pull the chain; in one experiment only 13% would do so — 87% preferred to go hungry. One macaque went without food for nearly two weeks rather than hurt its fellow. Macaques who had themselves been shocked in previous experiments were even less willing to pull the chain. The relative social status or gender of the macaques had little bearing on their reluctance to hurt others.
If asked to choose between the human experimenters offering the macaques this Faustian bargain and the macaques themselves — suffering from real hunger rather than causing pain to others — our own moral sympathies do not lie with the scientists. But their experiments permit us to glimpse in non-humans a saintly willingness to make sacrifices in order to save others — even those who are not close kin. By conventional human standards, these macaques — who have never gone to Sunday school, never heard of the Ten Commandments, never squirmed through a single junior high school civics lesson — seem exemplary in their moral grounding and their courageous resistance to evil. Among these macaques, at least in this case, heroism is the norm. If the circumstances were reversed, and captive humans were offered the same deal by macaque scientists, would we do as well? (Especially when there is an authority figure urging us to administer the electric shocks, we humans are disturbingly willing to cause pain — and for a reward much more paltry than food is for a starving macaque (cf. Stanley Milgram, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental Overview). In human history there are a precious few whose memory we revere because they knowingly sacrificed themselves for others. For each of them, there are multitudes who did nothing.”
~ Dr. Carl Sagan
Straw man. Both David and Nick used that term.
Did both Nick and David use the term “straw man” correctly?
The reason that I thought David MAY not have used it correctly is because he said that someone crticized his source (if I understood him correctly). That doesn’t seem like a straw man to me if David is the one that offered the source as an expert.
I also am not sure why Nick used the term. It seemed that his post was simply asking for clarification so I’m not sure why that is straw man. Can’t we ask for clarification without being accused of logical fallacies?
BUT…admittedly I am not sure I understand the term.
Do you agree with the definition that I found at wiki:
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
1.Person A has position X.
2.Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. Thus, Y is a resulting distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
1.Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent’s position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent’s actual position has been refuted.
2.Quoting an opponent’s words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent’s actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).
3.Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person’s arguments — thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.
4.Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5.Oversimplifying an opponent’s argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.
susan:
you say “The reason that I thought David MAY not have used it correctly is because he said that someone crticized his source (if I understood him correctly). That doesn’t seem like a straw man to me if David is the one that offered the source as an expert.”
The “Straw Man” Fallacy:
The strawman was not “criticizing my expert source”. I am fine with that. The strawman is misrepresenting his argument and substituting an argument that is easy to knock down. I said:
I think Dr. Campbell’s point is that THE AMOUNT OF MEAT in the S.A.D. (standard american diet) is too much. (this is his actual point)
These links are kinda strawmaning him, because they are basically arguing that it’s not a black and white “meat causes cancer” and “a vegan diet cures cancer”. I don’t think that is Dr. Campbell’s position. (nor is it mine) – strawman
I am not saying Aaron is committing the fallacy. I am saying I think his link seems to.
I also said “Lets throw that whole part out. Just for argument sake I will say that Dr. Campbell’s information is not reliable. My point doesn’t rest on that half an aspect of a sub category, and it seems to have caused more confusion/distraction then it helped unfortunately, because aaron went off fighting strawmen instead of dealing with my actual point. (which was not that meat causes cancer but that there are several issues when it comes to meat and morality, and to act like the only moral concern is animal phenomenological suffering is WAY reductionist.)”
He is not disputing the part about it being correlated with “Anaemia, appendicitis, arthritis, constipation, diabetes, gall stones, gout, high blood pressure, indigestion, obesity, piles, strokes, and varicose veins.” And that makes my point 1 still a solid point.
I gave 3 reasons besides animal suffering and he dismissed them all based on focusing on half an argument.
He is not trying to understand my argument and deal with it, he is trying to dismiss me as some kind of fanatic and act like I am being unreasonable and I have misinformation but he doesn’t really deal with my points.
He try’s to rip down half a point and acts like he has proven me wrong. Then he goes on to make a whole bunch of claims that he is not trying to back up.
I loved the youtube video. It helped a lot. Thank you.
It was interesting (to me) that he said that if someone continuously uses the straw man, then you should just give up the discussion because the person isn’t actually interested in an honest discussion.
Do you agree with that assessment? We have conversations (discussions) for various reasons. Perhaps sometimes we just want to plant a seed. Perhaps we just want to get people thinking about something. Or perhaps we’re just having fun with it. Maybe in those cases, we wouldn’t abandon the conversation if the person was continuously using logical fallacies. BUT… I think it definitely would be better (for me) if I could see the logical fallacies so that I don’t get frustrated. BUT certainly if you want an honest debate then abandoning the conversation (if someone continuously uses the straw man to attack) makes the most sense to me.
Susan:
you ask “It was interesting (to me) that he said that if someone continuously uses the straw man, then you should just give up the discussion because the person isn’t actually interested in an honest discussion.”
No doubt.
I think most strawmen are not made on purpose, but based on misunderstandings, and correcting those misunderstandings can sometimes clear up the problem. What you have to watch out for are people who are doing this out of malice, ignorance, and closed mindedness.
Before you can criticize anything you have to try and understand it or you probably are shooting at straw men.
For example Aaron’s first sentence is trying to strawman me.
He says “Not to incite your vegetarian and/or vegan religious sensibilities,”
Nice way to start huh. He is trying to make me seem like a fanatic instead of a reasonable person, with reasonable concerns, weighing pros and cons, depth and span.
So, if you care about things like health, world hunger, and sustainability that is based on “religious sensibilities”? Like veganism is a superstition and not a rational ethical choice.
To me this seems like malice, ignorance, and closed mindedness, wanting to shut me up and/or make me look stupid instead of trying to understand where I am coming from, and address my actual points logically. At least in terms of this topic he doesn’t seem like a person who wants to have an honest debate. I hope I am wrong about that. I guess we will have to wait and see.
I still think the definition of morality is the foundation of this conversation and until a person lays out their standards they are basically just stating their preferences and calling that moral.
David,
I will offer some factual clarificatory remarks. I do not care to delve into too much detail on the ethical aspect (I spent too much time engaging another with similar sympathies to your own in another post). Though, suffice it to say that I do not hold the capacity to experience pleasure and pain as a sine qua non of morality. In short, I hold that moral constraints are justified if and only if they facilitate the satisfaction by moral agents of subjectively determined value-preferences (whatever they may be).
Thus, for me, moral reasoning is simply a strategic version of plain old means-end reasoning. I include further, quasi-Kantian considerations (actions constrained by consistency, hypothetical imperatives, etc.), but a consequence of this position is the exclusion of non-human animals from moral constraints. If, however, you wish to press me on this, then read my comments here (the more relevant ones for present purposes are towards the bottom): http://unfspb.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/how-not-to-respond-to-the-immorality-of-factory-farms/
In your initial comment you write:
“Professor T. Colin Campbell PhD — Animal protein (meat and dairy) causes cancer: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1308977765978236346#”
(I responded by linking to two (there are many more, mind you) sources which dissect his claims and methodology and show where Dr. Campbell errs. While I myself have not examined it, from what others (in particular, the bunch at Science-based Medicine) have noted Dr. Campbell’s research suffers from severe methodological flaws and produces results about which one ought to be highly skeptical.)
You then proceed to write:
“These links [those critical of Dr. Campbell's research] are basically arguing that it’s not a black and white “meat causes cancer” and “a vegan diet cures cancer”. I don’t think that is Dr. Campbell’s position. (nor is it mine)”
Your statements are in obvious conflict with one another. Either your entire position on this matter is confused, you poorly present Dr. Campbell’s position in your initial comment, or you poorly present Dr. Campbell’s position in your subsequent comment. Which one?
As for the correlations between various levels of meat consumption and health risks, I am aware of much of the research; some is good, some is bad.
The reviews of the relevant evidence which I have read indicate that the correlations exist between diets proportionately high in meat consumption, not diets which incorporate meat.
That aside, whether a diet which heavily incorporates meat is or is not more healthful than a diet which eschews meat for vegetarian and/or vegan alternatives is immaterial to my concerns and weights naught in the ethical aspects which surround the issue. In other words, who cares if a heavily meat-based diet is associated with health risks. It is for the individual agent to decide whether to consume the meat or not. The principle is rather simple: If the agent elects to partake in risky habits or behaviors, then let a thousand flowers bloom.
On to a more controversial issue. I have seen data which purport to show that large-scale animal food production contributes to various environmental problems. Some sources maintain that large-scale animal food production is environmentally unsustainable while others maintain the opposite. In my assessment, I do not see evidence which compels me to buy the unsustainability argument. Of course, I am amenable to countervailing evidence that can demonstrate that large-scale animal food production imposes severe negative externalities upon third-parties.
My comment regarding the grain used in animal food production concerns your claim that animal food production contributes to starvation (where and when it occurs) and / or high foodstuff prices. The lion’s share of the good evidence which I have accessed show that high food prices and starvation are neither caused nor significantly influenced by animal food production.
A quote I found apropos:
“The food crisis appeared to explode overnight, reinforcing fears that there are just too many people in the world. But according to the FAO, with record grain harvests in 2007, there is more than enough food in the world to feed everyone—at least 1.5 times current demand. In fact, over the last 20 years, food production has risen steadily at over 2.0% a year, while the rate of population growth has dropped to 1.14% a year. Population is not outstripping food supply. ‘We’re seeing more people hungry and at greater numbers than before,’ says World Hunger Program’s executive director Josette Sheeran, ‘There is food on the shelves but people are priced out of the market.’”
Eric Holt-Giménez and Loren Peabody, “From Food Rebellions to Food Sovereignty: Urgent call to fix a broken food system,” Institute for Food and Development Policy, May 16, 2008
Though this is a bit tangential to the point, if markets are permitted to operate, then when grain prices rise relative to meat due to large-scale animal food production, meat prices will rise and consumers will demand less. Furthermore, as grain prices rise relative to meat, the higher prices will induce higher grain production, which will occur a few ways, to include a shift in resources away from grain production for large-scale food production to grain production for human consumption. (This is a rough overview, but you should get the idea.)
Aaron:
you say “I do not care to delve into too much detail on the ethical aspect”
That is too bad because this topic is about ethics. So you are off topic.
To save time you can see what I said about morals above. I am going to try and repeat myself as little as possible. Although you are definitely making this a challenge for me.
You have reduced relative Morality to personal subjective preference.
you say “I hold that moral constraints are justified if and only if they facilitate the satisfaction by moral agents of subjectively determined value-preferences (whatever they may be).”
Wow, you make selfishness sound pretty fancy. So “whatever a person likes” is good? Why is it true that your standard is good? Good for what/who? To what end?
you say “I hold that moral constraints are justified if and only if they facilitate the satisfaction by moral agents”
Nice circular reasoning. Morals satisfy moral agents?
Ok now define what it means to be a “moral agent” and how that standard is good. To what end?
you say “Professor T. Colin Campbell PhD — Animal protein (meat and dairy) causes cancer: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1308977765978236346#”
You then proceed to write:
“These links [those critical of Dr. Campbell's research] are basically arguing that it’s not a black and white “meat causes cancer” and “a vegan diet cures cancer”. I don’t think that is Dr. Campbell’s position. (nor is it mine)”
you say “Your statements are in obvious conflict with one another. Either your entire position on this matter is confused, you poorly present Dr. Campbell’s position in your initial comment, or you poorly present Dr. Campbell’s position in your subsequent comment. Which one?”
Good point, But the answer is none of the above. The person who named the video also misrepresented his point. This is a common problem when trying to make a book or a video seem important and/or summarize the message in a way that will catch peoples attention. This is why people say “you can’t judge a book by it’s cover” maybe in this case I would say “you can’t judge an internet video based on it’s title”. Online videos are often uploaded by people who are unrelated to the content, and who may or may not understand the arguments.
Also on the internet you can find negative criticisms of most anything. The question is are the criticisms and reasons good ones actually dealing with the points being made and looking at evidence? (I definitely think one of your links was better then the other, and it dealt with some real issues, but I think the person who wrote it is much closer to my position then yours.)
Did you watch the video and try to understand his point or did you just search for something to debunk it? (Were you just working backwards from your believe, dismissing ideas you don’t like out right, instead of being open minded and trying to understand the actual points of the other? Cause that is what all of this seems like to me.)
you say “As for the correlations between various levels of meat consumption and health risks, I am aware of much of the research; some is good, some is bad. The reviews of the relevant evidence which I have read indicate that the correlations exist between diets proportionately high in meat consumption, not diets which incorporate meat.”
I agree. It’s about the “how” and the “why” for me, not so much the “what”. Like I said, my point is that our eating habits are unsustainable, unhealthy, and cause unnecessary harm, My point was not that eating meat in it’s self is always “unhealthy” and/or “unethical”. (although I did say it would always be better to eat something that can’t feel pain instead.)
you say “That aside, whether a diet which heavily incorporates meat is or is not more healthful than a diet which eschews meat for vegetarian and/or vegan alternatives is immaterial to my concerns and weights naught in the ethical aspects which surround the issue. In other words, who cares if a heavily meat-based diet is associated with health risks. It is for the individual agent to decide whether to consume the meat or not. The principle is rather simple: If the agent elects to partake in risky habits or behaviors, then let a thousand flowers bloom.”
Interesting.. what if the person is a parent making these unhealthy decisions for their kids? Or a government setting unhealthy standards for what is considered “normal”?
Also you are still only factoring in humans. (a limited perspective) and you are seeing them as seemingly disconnected from their context, or with no responsibility to the environment and social systems that support them.
you say “I have seen data which purport to show that large-scale animal food production contributes to various environmental problems. Some sources maintain that large-scale animal food production is environmentally unsustainable while others maintain the opposite. In my assessment, I do not see evidence which compels me to buy the unsustainability argument. Of course, I am amenable to countervailing evidence that can demonstrate that large-scale animal food production imposes severe negative externalities upon third-parties.”
and you say “The lion’s share of the good evidence which I have accessed show that high food prices and starvation are neither caused nor significantly influenced by animal food production.”
ok, Based on what? You make all these claims like this, but never make any attempt to back them up. Honestly I don’t even believe you. You just say things like “based on tons of studies and all the evidence I have seen = assertion X.” Then you basically ask me to prove you wrong. That is not how it works.
It might sound reasonable because you say things like “the lion’s share of the good evidence” but you don’t bring any of that evidence or even the points reasons. So, what? Are you asking me to take your word for it? Cause I won’t, and at that point you are just wasting your time and mine. Don’t make the claim if you can’t back it up. If you can’t back it up then disregard it. (because I will) Just like I was willing to throw out my Dr. Campbell video.
you say ” Of course, I am amenable to countervailing evidence that can demonstrate that large-scale animal food production imposes severe negative externalities upon third-parties.”
I am assuming you are not counting other animals, and ecosystems as third-parties?
You didn’t respond to any of the things I said or posted about this, so It doesn’t seem like you are “amenable to countervailing evidence that can demonstrate that large-scale animal food production imposes severe negative externalities upon third-parties.”
you say “severe negative externalities upon third-parties” This is a vague standard. What counts as “severe negative externalities” and what counts as “third-parties”? Seems like a great way to move the goal post. “Oh that doesn’t count as a 3rd party” or “oh that is not severe or negative enough.”
you talk about evidence but you don’t present any of it and it seems like at the end of the day you are just deciding to believe what you like.
you say “I have seen data which purport to show that large-scale animal food production contributes to various environmental problems. Some sources maintain that large-scale animal food production is environmentally unsustainable while others maintain the opposite.”
Ok but what are the reasons, factors? Based on what?
Someone is right though right? You do think their is a truth to be known don’t you?
you say “In my assessment, I do not see evidence which compels me to buy the unsustainability argument.”
Yes, but I don’t trust your assessment. Your perspective is too limited. (humancentric/egocentric)
you quote “The food crisis appeared to explode overnight, reinforcing fears that there are just too many people in the world. But according to the FAO, with record grain harvests in 2007, there is more than enough food in the world to feed everyone—at least 1.5 times current demand. In fact, over the last 20 years, food production has risen steadily at over 2.0% a year, while the rate of population growth has dropped to 1.14% a year. Population is not outstripping food supply. ‘We’re seeing more people hungry and at greater numbers than before,’ says World Hunger Program’s executive director Josette Sheeran, ‘There is food on the shelves but people are priced out of the market.’”
What kind of food? What quality of food? How much is Where? and available to who? Without this information we are not seeing the full picture. All of that can be the case and yet “We’re seeing more people hungry and at greater numbers than before”
you say “if markets are permitted to operate, then when grain prices rise relative to meat due to large-scale animal food production, meat prices will rise and consumers will demand less.”
This is not necessarily the case. You are assuming the grain prices will rise.
If you own both the grain production and the animal production why would the grain price rise? Also the reason these people are getting these resources from other countries is because their citizens and economies are more desperate and so things are cheaper. This is a catch 22, because they are selling off their resources, and that keeps most of the people who live in those areas desperate, hungry, and poor.
Or they will starve because the whole world doesn’t have access to the american economy/marketplace or other places where all this food we have produced is located.) You may see food on the shelves here in America, but what about in other places where resources are being relocated to feed American and European farm animals?
A good start and a good challenge for the regular joe.:
Part-Time Carnivore: Meat & World Hunger:
As I said before we are dealing with shades of grey not blacks and whites. Less meat is good, sustainable organic meat is better, No meat is best, and habits can’t/shouldn’t change over night.
Joel:
you say “Have you ever Stepped on a nail and not felt it–then: Pain Strikes you. You’ve been standing on the nail for a minute, but because you had your mind focused on the hottie walking by, you didn’t notice it.”
No, I have never experienced anything like this. Have you? Do you think this is common?
I don’t think a person who stepped on a nail wouldn’t feel it if they are thinking about pretty girls or even if their is one around.
I would think Anyone who steps on a nail even if they are distracted with other thoughts will immediately feel it and cry out.
Yeah, where do you do you think I got the example. I’ve been injured allot like this. I think, though not as badly, many people have similar stories, like carrying a hot plate while talking, and only realizing the pain when someone mentions what you are doing.
But, I’ve been stabbed, burned and cut without ever realizing what has happend. Also, several month ago I got a hook stuck through my finger. It was deep, close to the bone, and I couldn’t get it out by pulling. So, I had to cut it partially out, cutting deep into my finger with an old, blackened tube of antiseptic, pliers and a razor that I borrowed from a man I met under the bridge. I was able to deviate my mind away from the pain to the project, so I really didn’t feel pain in any normal sense. It was intense pain, as my flesh blossomed out like a flower, but it was of a neutral value. Pain is a strange thing, in that part of its power is the label.
When I was a Christian and a child, missions work was a huge part of my life. And, many of the people I met had been tortured. Some brutally. And, one of the parts of missions education is that they teach you to withstand torture. It is the anticipation that is the problem. It is the labels and context that you assign to the pain. So, you close your eyes or disassociate your self from the pain or both depending on your present position. This is why many times they really do tape your eyes open. When you anticipate pain and put into context it puts it into a whole new category: suffering. By controlling higher level associations, you can stop the suffering of pain.
I’ve used this method, of controlling pain many times, as my life has been rough. Medicine in my family many times took the form of a lighter, a scrub-brush, peroxide, cloths detergent, bleach, paper towels, a tourniquet, a razor blade and super-glue. Hospitals were too costly.
Pain is definitely a higher level association. To me, it seems obvious and intuitive that pain is an upper level function. I’m exploring how to put this kind of thing in words. I want to do a little research on the difference between physiological pain and the experience of suffering. They are different, as can easily be seen from Masochist. I think this is an important distinction, as this is what we need to avoid in all areas of life; we need to avoid suffering.
I have to agree with David on this one! I think that you might be exceptional, Joel.
Check this out:
RSA Animate – 21st century enlightenment:
[...] is here. Congratulations to Joel whose post, “Killing a Vegan: Degrees of Subjectivity,” was featured in this [...]
I think that your overall point has some merit, though it is more convincing when it comes from people like Martha Nussbaum and Peter Singer, i.e., committed vegetarians who are just not sure how far they should expand their moral sphere, rather than a non-vegetarian who is presumably just trying to justify his meat-eating habits. Nevertheless, I think your argument still has some merit.
I do have some objections, however:
Firstly, you write “How do you know lower animals don’t suffer?”; well, I know what the necessary conditions for phenomenological pain in the human brain are, and I see them in some animals and not others.” What are these necessary conditions? Just to be clear, do you see these conditions in cows, deer, and pigs? If so, then you presumably do not condone eating these animals. If you do not see these “necessary conditions” in these animals, then I think that you might be a little too confident in your assessment of which animals can boast of these “necessary conditions.” Your argument is transparently self-serving if you only see these necessary conditions in human beings and chimps.
Secondly, as others have pointed out, people become vegetarians and vegans for all sorts of ethical and personal reasons. For many, the most important consideration is the fact that refraining from eating meat is the most significant decision that a person who is worried about the environment can make. I’ll presume that you know why this is. If you don’t, then look it up.
Finally, I think that when something as crucial as the permissibility of the slaughter of billions of animals is the question, one ought, ethically, to err on the side of being a little too strict rather than throwing caution to the wind. It could be that you’re right and chickens don’t feel pain and, so, you get to eat chicken. Good for you. But unless we’re certain that chickens can’t feel pain, and, of course, we aren’t, then I think the appropriate ethical response is to eat some seitan instead. It’s easy, it’s better for you, and the “hottie” who prevents you from feeling the pain of the nail that you’re standing on digs vegans.
Why stop at pain? If our sometimes tuning out a sensation is evidence that said sensation is higher-order, requires the “I”-concept, and therefore isn’t felt by chickens, we’ll quickly find that chickens are devoid of phenomenal sensation entirely.
Then again, why think that being able to tune a sensation out is evidence that it’s higher-order, requires the “I” concept, and therefore isn’t felt by chickens? The author doesn’t say.
He does say “I know what the necessary conditions for phenomenological pain in the human brain are.” Well, what are they? There’s got to be something you can say about that other than “trust me.”
Some of you might find this interesting:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/mar/06/science.animalwelfare
No offense but this is an extremely unconvincing argument. If you don’t notice pain after a minute of stepping on a nail, you need to see a neurologist or maybe a coroner. Your examples of touching something hot is a better example but such examples only show that there is a slight delay in the nerve transmission from one area of the body to the area of the brain processing pain which is expected. The electro chemical signal is propagated at most at about 300 feet per second and usually much slower than that (sometimes only round 30 feet per second depending on the type of nerve cell and its myelination ), if I remember my physiology correctly. So it’s expected that there is a slight delay between you touching something hot and you noticing the feel pain.
Many other issues are confused and murky. For example, what do you mean by ‘“I” concept”? What do you mean by “higher order function”?
Don’t you simply mean something like “self consciousness”? First of all, it’s a highly debated within both the neuroscientific and philosophical literature whether higher consciousness is required for the experience of pain.
Second, what specifically is a higher-order brain function (responsible for pain) in your view and which animals have them and which do not and what evidence do you have of this? And what specifically are “necessary conditions for phenomenological pain in the human brain”?
You give two suggestive examples of animals, the chimp and a chicken, with the former you suggest having these higher order functions and the later not having them. But you do not specify what exactly is that which distinguishes these two creatures such that one has the relevant “higher order functions” the other does not.
It is true that a chimp, being a mammal, has certain brain structures that a chicken, being a bird, does not such as a neocortex. And some people have argued that a neocortex is responsible for self-consciousness but this is wrong. A neocortex is neither necessary nor sufficient for self-consciousness. This is verified by empirical evidence as all mammals have a neocortex but some (probably most) mammals do not pass tests of self consciousness. It is thus not sufficient for self-consciousness. It is not apparently necessary for self-consciousness as some birds (corvids and parrots) have passed many tests of self-consciousness.
You say: “I assert that when we consider the morals of animal suffering, there should be a consideration of the degrees of subjectivity. ”
But that is a strawman. Many vegans are probably willing to admit that (adult) humans are likely to suffer more than a chicken from being killed, etc but it doesn’t follow that Chickens don’t feel pain or that it is not wrong to kill chickens.
The science on animal pain is vast and deep and there is mounting evidence that animals like fish, birds and even some invertebrates like lobsters (though the evidence here is a little more sketchy) feel pain.
This is an empirical question and has been answered in the affirmative for many species (including animals that you probably would not consider higher order etc) and mounting evidence for other species are piling up. You can’t just assume you can answer them with self-reflection on your experiences with pain and self consciousness. You would actually have to engage with the neurophysiological and ethological literature.
I actually have often the reverse impression from you. When I am day dreaming, etc and not noticing myself or being self conscious, and I experience a sudden sensation of pain, I sense the pain first and only after that notice “myself” or the “I” or the experiencer of the pain. I think you got the cart before the horse here.
One alternative construal of your observation is that pain requires attention, and attention can be directed by higher-order processes (however those are defined or detected), but that attention is not dependent on those higher-level processes.
Since the ideas appealed to here – that attention modulates experience, and that higher-order processes can influence attention – seem to be independently plausible and hard to deny, this construal strikes me as preferable to yours (that pain itself is dependent on higher-order processes), which is counter-intuitive.
I feel compelled to write something on this topic I have attempted to argue with Joel about, and this time he doesn’t bring out a human brain and a pointer stick to confuse me.
I am a vegetarian. I care about animals. I do not look down on or condemn people who do not eat like me and my girlfriend do.
My vegetarian-ism is more political based, less emotional. Farms are not Steinbeck throw-backs anymore, they are evil, giant corporations that are destroying the evolution of the human race.
That is quite an accusation.
I am not here on the soapbox, you all can watch Food Inc., a wonderful film, on your own time.
Pain is something subjective to every living thing. You will never know how a plant hurts, or a chimp dies. One of the greatest aspects of life is that there are still mysteries of “other life.”
The notion of “I” and the reality that pain is similar to a food chain doesn’t really sit well with me.
The fact remains that everyone believes the other side is crazy.
Travis:
You are living proof that there is an “other side” and it is crazy. I have to admit that you bring up a very disappointing part of writing: I can’t just “bring out a human brain and a pointer stick to confuse [you]“.
This is quite a long conversation, and I must admit to skimming a good deal of the no doubt excellent comments, so apologies if I repeat anything covered above. I think melektaus has a good point, which is that the phenomenology here may be a bit suspect. My own experience with pain is monistic not detached and dualistic like Joel’s description. There is no “I” which becomes the “I-pain” there is just “Ouch! Dammit!”
I would be tempted to argue that the argument presented here has things backwards – pain brings me to an animal level. The more severe it is, the less conscious I am of an “I” and the more my world becomes the pain. Higher cognitive self-awareness gets diminished and the cultural and linguistic “I” fades into an all-consuming pain.
I think that this largely is a topic that phenomenology would do best to outsource to biology, since phenomenology seems to be of little difference in telling us how extremely different beings experience the world. I don’t know what it is like to be a bat, or to be a chicken in pain (or, as you may have it, a chicken displaying adverse reactions that we anthropocentrically attribute to pain). But we do not need to know what such experiences are like to have a good idea that chickens do feel pain (even if we grant we cannot know the exact nature of chicken-pain). This is far from my field of specialty, but here is just one study: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ufaw/aw/1992/00000001/00000004/art00002
There are two types of evidence for determining whether another being feels pain: physiological and behavioral. Both can of course be doubted (note that this applies to other humans as well). But when they combine – when, as we do with chickens, we have an animal with a nervous system and brain with what we take to be a pain-detecting section and which demonstrates behaviors indicative of pain, that provides good rational reasons for thinking they feel pain. Trees offer neither kind of indication, so that analogizing chickens to them seems problematic.
There is at least one thing that philosophers may be able to contribute here, though, and that is what does this imply for humans with at similar levels of cognitive development? Newborn babies notably do not have an “I” concept; all evidence I am aware of indicates that they lack the self-awareness that you believe makes pain necessary. Does Joel also deny that babies feel pain? And there are many other humans with various cognitive impairments. In cases where they retain awareness but not higher level self-awareness, do they also not feel pain? There is no reason to think so, but if we are to hold consistently that self-awareness is necessary for feeling pain, there may be implications that would trouble most people. (Note that even thought we would still see babies as moral patients, their inability to feel pain would seem to render a number of pain-causing actions which we currently condemn less morally troubling or even morally neutral.)
I also think that the phrase “phenomenological pain” needs more explanation. Is that different from just plain and simple pain? Isn’t all pain, by definition, experienced and therefore phenomenological? Is the argument to deny that chickens can feel any sort of pain, or that they can feel pain, but it is not “phenomenological pain”? The former is really something which has been rather solidly refuted by biological evidence. If the latter, it needs to be argued why only animals experiencing phenomenological pain need protecting rather than animals which experience pain of any sort. Pain of any sort, as an intrinsically negative experience, would need strong justifications before being inflicted on other beings. (Needless to say, those justificatory requirements are not satisfied by pointing out that we like the taste of their flesh!)