tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375681131276548542.post6650588141182497527..comments2024-02-27T10:53:04.581+01:00Comments on paperpools: practical ethics & triangulation of desireHelen DeWitthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07619602559096610012noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375681131276548542.post-48777660073295922812009-06-11T09:05:52.450+01:002009-06-11T09:05:52.450+01:00With regard to trade-offs in social nicety, my fee...With regard to trade-offs in social nicety, my feeling is that the Aristotelian view of ethics is probably right: one tries to cultivate good habits. If you work out, rationally, that a certain type of behaviour looks morally right, you are not necessarily going to <i>feel</i> that it is right - on the contrary, in the case of vegetarianism, the social norm with regard to animals' lower status may go on feeling natural for a long time. The fact of practising respect for animal rights, though - even in this extremely diluted, non-activist form - will itself strengthen one's feeling that one's feelings.<br /><br />When people talk, anyway, about trade-offs between social inconvenience and veganism or vegetarianism, what they tend to do is assume precisely the thing that is disputed. We don't normally think mere social inconvenience justifies the killing of humans; our society does countenance homicide in certain circumstances, but the requirements for justification are very high. The requirement for justification for killing an animal, on the other hand, is extremely low, and in some cases non-existent. Someone who thinks the vegetarian or vegan extreme in causing awkwardness in, um, choosing a restaurant is really just repeating what we already know, that they think the killing of animals so trifling it takes a back seat to minor social annoyance.<br /><br />I'm a bit taken aback, anyway, by the way people immediately leap to language like "impose" when the subject under discussion like picking a restaurant. It seems to me that, when a group of friends are thinking of going out for a meal, it's perfectly normal for someone to have preferences that exclude certain types of restaurant - X doesn't like Thai food, Y doesn't like tapas, Z is very conservative and doesn't like any foreign food at all. My ex-father-in-law, my sister's significant other and my mother's best friend all hate a wide variety of restaurants that my ex, my sister, my mother and I all like - but it would seem silly to talk of their "imposing" their preferences. If we're going out, why shouldn't we look for a restaurant that serves food they will enjoy? I can't see that rejecting certain restaurants because they won't have vegetarian or, as it might be, vegan food causes any greater inconvenience.Helen DeWitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07619602559096610012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375681131276548542.post-79910683114608630922009-06-11T04:30:53.410+01:002009-06-11T04:30:53.410+01:00Like with torture?Like with torture?The Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13240545290991105611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375681131276548542.post-63842025929205900302009-06-11T04:22:44.216+01:002009-06-11T04:22:44.216+01:00Jonathon Safran Toer's position is a reasonabl...Jonathon Safran Toer's position is a reasonable one. <br /><br />I'm what I describe as a "social vegetarian", someone who is vegan for most purposes, but eats vegetarian when eating out. People who put themselves into sharp moral categories, and then try to impose them no matter the circumstances don't seem to realise that the world is complicated and the 'moral' act is not always the best one.GZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07756723544792981390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375681131276548542.post-71449582652565526372009-06-10T08:31:00.616+01:002009-06-10T08:31:00.616+01:00My assumption is that nothing will advance the cau...My assumption is that nothing will advance the cause with the majority of non-vegetarians - alienating won't, but nothing else will either. The people I know who did become vegetarians, though, did so because at some point they became aware of arguments they had not previously considered. So it's good to bring the subject up from time to time.Helen DeWitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07619602559096610012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375681131276548542.post-36757935557323385032009-06-10T05:21:44.681+01:002009-06-10T05:21:44.681+01:00Mark Bittman, author of cookbooks and NYT blogger,...Mark Bittman, author of cookbooks and NYT blogger, has often discussed his habit of being a vegetarian until 6 pm. I believe this has something to do with vegetarianism not being a sustainable option for everyone while acknowledging that everyone ought to at least reduce their meat intake. He mentions the case of Ghent, which you might have heard of, encouraging people to be vegetarian at least once a week: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/may/13/ghent-belgium-vegetarian-day<br /><br />The defensiveness I've encountered when identifying my vegetarian proclivity, whether or not I was being confrontational or preachy about it (not much anymore), has led me to believe that the eating of meat is as much a status thing, as perhaps only the Chinese are willing to admit, as it is about taste. Apparently, my erstwhile colleagues in Japan were offended by it, as I later found out, though they said nothing at the time (surprise). Other non-Westerners, in East Asia particularly, regard it as a form of penance, though few cultures consume giant steaks and entire chickens, etc., the way we do in the West.<br /><br />Avoiding contention in this matter is usually easier, but, as you point out, so goes the courage of your convictions. On the other hand, eating is so fundamentally a part of life, people tend to take it quite personally, and alienating other people is no way to advance your cause. So morality aside, we also need to consider what is effective for convincing people to adopt at least partial-vegetarian habits. I think Peter Singer's arguments are probably too simplistic except where they address the particular excesses of affluent nations.<br /><br />And I generally regard any weak yin-yangy talk of "dynamic balance" between two opposing sides to be crap. The law of the excluded middle raises again its ugly, Greek head. Contrarily, I certainly wish there were, in fact, "too many good ideas to consider." More like too many feckless excuses to debunk.The Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13240545290991105611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375681131276548542.post-37465480720390952862009-06-04T18:23:08.913+01:002009-06-04T18:23:08.913+01:00EA: If I understand you correctly, you believe the...EA: If I understand you correctly, you believe the following two claims to be equivalent:<br /><br />1. Vegetarianism is morally preferable to non-vegetarianism.<br /><br />2. Vegetarianism guarantees the moral superiority of all actions by a vegetarian to those of a non-vegetarian.<br /><br />I believe 1. to be true. This is not a particularly good reason to attribute to me a belief as self-evidently silly as 2, nor does the self-evident silliness of 2. do anything to discredit 1.Helen DeWitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07619602559096610012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375681131276548542.post-41411001860533439672009-06-04T17:33:32.476+01:002009-06-04T17:33:32.476+01:00Hi Helen,
A folk singer from Michigan that I'...Hi Helen,<br /><br />A folk singer from Michigan that I've known for years, Joel Mabus, wrote a pithy, humorous tune, "Hitler Was a Vegetarian". Lyrics at: http://joelmabus.com/288_lyrics.htm#hitler<br /><br />He used to lead in with the statement, "I can think of a lot of good reasons to be a vegetarian, but moral superiority is not one of them". <br /><br /><br />Hope all is going well.Espressonist Artisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13731208764324806039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375681131276548542.post-85894624672335908392009-06-03T11:47:55.636+01:002009-06-03T11:47:55.636+01:00elfvillage, I can't see that Singer is appeali...elfvillage, I can't see that Singer is appealing to moral intuitions at all; he considers whether there are relevant criteria distinguishing humans from animals which might justify killing the latter but not the former in the interest of convenience and concludes that the differences between humans and non-human animals don't do the work they're being asked to do.Helen DeWitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07619602559096610012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375681131276548542.post-16988082021485804892009-06-03T11:24:11.030+01:002009-06-03T11:24:11.030+01:00Ned, Thanks for the link. I forget to bring my hea...Ned, Thanks for the link. I forget to bring my head phones to cafes so end up never catching podcasts, but this looks interesting. <br /><br />I like Lang because he not only explains the equations and the phenomena they describe, but also gives the literature showing the history of the research underlying current understanding. It's fantastic.Helen DeWitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07619602559096610012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375681131276548542.post-3609581580799551862009-06-03T07:06:22.303+01:002009-06-03T07:06:22.303+01:00Of course, it could just be that refraining from e...Of course, it could just be that refraining from eating meet really does muddy one's pants in a significant way. In my case, I like it. And that is enough. (I'm a brute.) But if I wanted more reason, I might say: And the social bother of being a vegetarian carries more moral weight with me than the slaughter of animals. If I said that, I should be capitulating to convention—but *not* because I failed to think the matter through and to act on that thinking. In doing this, I am not giving head room to crap; I am simply acting on the same sort of moral intuitions to which Singer appeals—intuitions, which, in my case, happen to make bothering myself and my neighbours a greater moral bad than bothering animals.<br /><br />Besides, I believe that Singer's response to the observation that, in addition to his large salary, he also enjoys a very large trust fund was, "Yes, but my ideals are only workable in a world in which everyone follows through on them. Everyone should." True enough but rather less than heroic.elfvillagenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375681131276548542.post-69724396048246410702009-06-02T04:16:01.675+01:002009-06-02T04:16:01.675+01:00Perhaps you've already seen this, but what you sai...Perhaps you've already seen this, but what you said about your versus your family's heroes made me think of it:<br /><br />http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html<br /><br />I like to couple this with an idea i got from Jared Diamond's Collapse. He introduces the idea starting with the fact that the Greenlandic Vikings ended up starving after the collapse of their agriculture, even while the Inuits continued to thrive on fish and whale meat. He suggests that early on in the settlement of Greenland, a couple people may have gotten very sick eating fish; in any case, it becamse a strong taboo -- that's what the Inuit ate, not good Christian men, etc.<br /><br />But the idea is that the living conditions in Greenland were so tough, and life so precarious, that they couldn't afford to experiment with lifestyles. A kind of social conservatism was all that kept them on the straight and narrow path through the long winters. (Until things changed, and then they were fucked.)<br /><br />Anyway, with that long introduction, you can then marry the two ideas: that there has to be a dynamic balance between right- and left-ies to both maintain social order, and to adapt to changing circumstances. If you were to let the lefties loose, we'd probably tear everything down and start from the very beginning -- but then start bickering among one another about how best to rebuild, since we can't agree on anything; there're too many good arguments to consider. And so we need the right to hold us in check.<br /><br />Jonathan Haidt in the link above refers to it as stepping out of the moral matrix. I like that idea.<br /><br />Also, Helen, a personal question -- why do you own a copy of Lang's Formulae? *laugh*nedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01741234382965175068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375681131276548542.post-48084493201965404282009-05-30T15:44:46.716+00:002009-05-30T15:44:46.716+00:00It seems you think much as I'd like to think I thi...It seems you think much as I'd like to think I think, in these matters; so I'll say, don't read Singer's new book unless you feel able to convince yourself that you don't need most of your money.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com