What is the impact if true?
This question is my second in response to Peter Singer's argument against eating animals. In the first part I established that animals do indeed have souls (we can discuss this also).
from my analysis:
"The notion animals possess souls leads to a second interesting question: is it immoral for animals to eat other animals? According to Singer's logic it stands to reason that it is immoral for such action to be taken against another soul-possessing organism. While Singer argues specifically against human consumption of animals, his logic extends to all animal interactions. The distinction can be made that many animals must consume animal flesh for survival where people can subsist without the pleasure of consuming meat. This argument falls to the simple fact that while plants may not be part of a specific organism's diet, said organism can undoubtedly survive off plants alone. If we accept the idea that animals possessing souls act immorally by consuming each other, what is the impact?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The first problem I see with my analysis (above) is that in some instances animals could subsist on plants but they may not be readily available. It may also be impossible for some animals to obtain suitable quantities of plant material to subsist. The example that comes to mind is sharks in the ocean. These animals are adapted to consume other fish and sea life, it would be extremely difficult for they to locate enough plankton or other sea dwelling plants to actually survive. In this case it may be morally permissible for a shark to eat other animals. This assumes it is moral to protect your own life over that of others (which I am not necessarily convinced it is).
ReplyDeleteIn repsonse to Evan's point above, I wonder whether you have miscontrued Singer's point. You seem to imply that Singer believes that EVERY organism, not just humans, is morally required to practice vegetarianism. But are nonrational animals moral agents? And even if they are, how practical is it to for a shark to have a vegetarian diet? Singer really has bigger fish to fry, namely us! His argument is that humans have a moral obligation to vegetarianism -- which avoids some of the ridiculous implicatons mentioned above.
ReplyDeleteI think Dr. Ialacci is correct, hopefully people read the other comments before posting their own. I am interested in seeing if anyone has responses against Singer's idea that humans are morally responsible for practicing vegetarianism since animals have the right not to suffer.
ReplyDeleteI second Dr. Ialacci's point, that being that humans are a special case, given our keen self-awareness, a key trait when it comes to making decisions based on morals. Where for us, we can consciously decide to survive off of a diet without meat, animals will usually operate off of instinct and the available resources. While we can ship fresh fruits and vegetables from hundreds of miles away, the diet of an animal is incredibly limited. It is the fact that we are consciously preying upon other living things when we know that there are alternatives that makes Peter Singer's argument about humans theoretically valid. While I suppose an animal would have to make a "choice" to hunt another animal, there is no way that they would piece together a debate of the moral justification of their actions.
ReplyDeleteJust a hypothetical, I wonder what Singer would say if someone was put in the situation of starving to death, with the only means of sustenance being animals around him. Would this person be justified in killing the animals to stay alive? In any situation would killing animals be justified? As humans we have ways of justifying wars so there may be some logic to be had. At the same time, I think this also begs the question, even if animals do have a soul and right to live, are we humans superior to them in the sense that if the possible outcomes were either we die, or the animal dies that we should naturally favor ourselves.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it helps that humans are omnivorous. I feel pretty sure a tiger can't easily live off of roughage and soybeans.
ReplyDeleteSo if you take it from the humans' perspective, i think one possible line of reasoning is that living on plants is also detrimental to animals indirectly in a number of ways, so living off of meat can in the long term be more humane than otherwise. First, agriculture takes huge swathes of land that could be habitat to animals. To go vegetarian, you have to displace lots of animals and basically screw up the food chain, not to mention that you probably need much more food to eat as a vegetarian than a meat eater because a lot of vegetarian foods don't contain the same nutritious content as meat, which makes it more difficult to reach satiety. Second, arguably, having an animal die in the wild would be a less humane death than having them die in human captivity. I mean, getting gashed apart sucks, too, and it is by no means objectively better than quick, efficient slaughter. Third, messing up the food chain is bad because it puts even more animals at risk when you introduce new predatory species into different habitats, causing even more needless animal death.
But even ignoring that, it seems like so long as other animals prey on each other, human consumption does become a moot point, because we aren't stopping the cruelty by stopping ourselves from eating meat, unless you really can turn a tiger vegetarian.
Part of the distinction Singer makes is that cruelty and suffering experienced by animals during prep for human consumption is immoral. I am pretty sure without the suffering aspect he agrees it is alright to consume them. So, if you can kill animals without suffering technically he sees no problem (as I understand it).
ReplyDeleteI agree with Evan's point about whether the animal suffers or not being the case. If an animal suffers while being prepared for consumption, then it would be classified as immoral if the pain is avoidable. There is no further benefit from making the animal feel pain. For instance, the cooking of lobsters is highly immoral because you throw the live lobster into a pot of boiling water. There must be a way to make lobster without making the lobster suffer one of the most painful deaths one can think of. A more moral way of preparing food is the chicken. Usually with a chicken it's just you chop the head and you are done. It all seems to depend on the preparation of the food that makes it moral or immoral.
ReplyDeleteAlso there is the biological factor. We need some of the nutrients found in these animals to stay alive ourselves. We wouldn't be classified as omnivores if we didn't eat both meat and vegetation. Now some might argue that eating meat isn't necessary but I haven't done that much research into the subject. However, what I do know is that humans need certain amino acids to survive and those amino acids are found in other animals. If someone can find a way to get those amino acids any other way sufficiently, then more power to them.
Singer's framework for the animal rights movement is essentially utilitarian; in order to maximize the prevalence of good, he claims, the standards of morality ought to be applied to all species who are capable of suffering. Singer doesn't argue whether or not the consumption of animals is acceptable. His philosophy strives for an expansion of good, which he believes can be accomplished by reducing suffering. In that sense, Gwin's question regarding the starving human being is not necessarily applicable, because, although the animal would suffer at the hands of the man, the man's hunger and pain would be relieved. In other words, the amount of physical anguish remains static.
ReplyDeleteThinking about the point that Evan brought up at the beginning about how sharks for example, amoung other animals, could not survive on a vegetarian diet, doesn't this also apply to a few humans as well. The issue does not relate to evolutionary distinctions but to location. In some places, plants simply don't grow in enough quantity for everyone to be able to participate in a veggie diet. Arctic tundra, desserts, or simply where soil is not fertile for farming.
ReplyDelete