I'm at school, and probably shouldn't be on here, but I am anyway. I wanted to quickly share some thoughts with a book I'm skimming through for my research paper on vegetarianism.
I came across The Omivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals by Michael Pollan while trying to find more sources about meat controversy. Pollan talks about various issues regarding the modern diet.
I focused more on his chapter, "The Ethics of Eating Animals", and found myself pondering a very important question - to continue my meatless diet after this month is over, or to resume my diet of chicken and seafood?
Pollan quotes the utilitatarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham, "The question is not Can they reason? Or Can they talk? But Can they suffer?"
"Bentham here is playing a powerful card philosophers call the "argument for marginal cases," or AMC for short. It goes like this: There are humans - infants, the severely retarded, the demented - whose mental function does not rise to the level of a chimpanzee. Even though these people cannot reciprocate our moral attentions (obey the golden rule, etc.) we nevertheless include them in the circle of our moral consideration. So on what basis do we exclude the chimpanzee?
Because he's a chimp, I furiously scribble in the margin, and they're human beings! For Singer, that's not good enough. To exclude the chimp from moral consideration simply because he's not human is no different than excluding the slave simply because he's not white. In the same way we'd call that exclusion "racist" the animal rightist contends it is "speciesist" to discriminate against the chimpanzee solely because he's not human..."
"If I believe in equality, and equality is based on interests rather than chracteristics, then either I have to take the steer's interest into account or accept that I'm a speciesist."
That is but a small exerpt of what has really perplexed me about the issue, and only skims the surface regarding the rights of animals. I don't have much interest in the other chapters, but maybe one day I will.
I've heard great things about that book. But, I encourage you to continue to think critically. It's easy to have your heart strings pulled because he's bringing in the moral of not wanting anything living to suffer. What about the cat dissection you did for Anatomy? That serves a purpose for medicine, but the person who wrote that quote would argue that it was meaningless. The cats "suffered."
ReplyDeleteThere are people out there that don't want plants to "suffer" either. There are people out there that subsist (like here in Alaska) & greatly respect animals. They are appreciative that the animals contribute to the life cycle.
You're going to learn a lot of side information & be exposed to things that are malarkey along the way. What's your focus for this project? Health? Loosing weight? Animal rights?
* I know, that's why I'm having an internal conflict regarding if I want to continue vegetarianism or not. If I do decide to eat meat, I would make sure it's free-range and without chemicals. But then again, I CAN survive without meat. It's not essential. So I can either live the logical and "ethical" way, or make like Buddha and "simple up".
ReplyDelete* That is also true. Another point in the book said if everyone was Jewish (had a Kosher diet), there would be no pigs. No need, and no suffering.
* .. and that's why I'm trying to avoid P.E.T.A's website at all costs. I find them just as extreme as many meat-advocates, which isn't a way to deal with problems (fire + fire = inferno). The main focus is just a vegetarian diet vs. an omnivorous diet, with points such as health, culture, religion, animals, etc. My personal focus is on health, as I'll bring out into my concluded statements.