On Moral Superiority, Part Deux
I was driving to Asheville, North Carolina yesterday, so I missed all the fun. I would like to clarify and reiterate a couple of issues.
- Boyd begins the discussion thinking I’m focusing on the wrong argument: I draw the line at sentience and he draws it at human. This is exactly the definition of speciesism. We humans think we’re better, and because "because we are" is a weak reason, we concoct other reasons, such as: we’re more intelligent (based on our combination of intelligences) and God "gave us" everyone and everything to use as we wish (which is also articulated in language of stewardship and management). Racism, sexism and anti-semitism are also based on equally "because we’re us and they’re not" arguments.
- Veganism is a lifestyle based in nonviolence and the desire to not participate in speciesism if it can be avoided. And the good news is that it’s not that difficult to live a life that does not exploit other sentient beings. Back to yesterday, is it so outrageous to say that choosing to refrain from killing sentient beings without necessity rather than killing them is a superior choice?
- I’m not sure why it would be important that the nonhumans we’re using have or don’t have moral codes of their own (and as Emily points out, they do). What we’re talking about is our actions. As Emily asks, regardless: Why is it okay to kill individuals that lack a moral code? Why indeed.
- I’d be remiss if I didn’t thank Ron, "the outraged guy who provided the dead collared cougar photo to anyone who would post it and asked others to forward it far and wide," for sharing his story, for being so transparent, and for the Causey quote, which takes us right back to speciesism.
If you want to kill nonhuman animals for your use there are myriad excuses you can use to rationalize why you need to continue killing and using them (or paying someone else to do so). After all, you have something to gain (e.g., you like the taste of meat, you like the feel of leather, you want to maintain your "tradition" and/or you don’t want to change your lifestyle). But what do vegans have to gain from what we do? Our motivation is to make the world a more peaceful place and to not personally participate in the subjugation of other species.
Recently, someone commented that I want to "force" people to be vegans. There’s nothing further from the truth. What I want is for people to think about what they do and ask themselves why they do it. I want people to educate themselves about what goes on behind the scenes of the industries that provide them with their food, clothing and entertainment. I want them to make choices based on factual information and developments in science, rather than on culture, tradition, or preference. In my experience, most people have not taken the time and energy necessary to make responsible decisions. Why? Probably partly because they know doing so would likely threaten their current lifestyle and choices. And partly because it simply never occurred to them.
There’s nothing more painful than the emergence of a new idea that’s in opposition to an existing one. Kudos to all who change their lives based on ideas that are new to them.
Veganism remains a step too far but I am vegetarian again as of yesterday (for the first time in about 10 years). I know my main obstacle is rampant hedonism and laziness. As a psychologist I feel that hypocracy is to some extent a natural human condition but I try and practice it in moderation and with some self-awareness.
My problem is your belief that being a vegan makes you morally superior to anyone.
I just don't buy it . . . and telling the rest of society that there is little difference between eating meat and running a dog fighting ring (or worse, being a pedophile – but I don't believe thats what you meant) or (not you but one of your commentators) dismissing the atrocities of the 2nd World War by claiming that people who eat meat are no better than the Germans who actively looked the other way during the Holocaust is not only insulting, but terribly misguided and wrong that it raises strong questions about the moral compass of the vegan movement.
I don't of course, subscribe these concerns to you. I think you actually come across as significantly more sane and reasonable than most PETA nuts (I know, I know, you don't support PETA) and animal right extremists. But, the views of your commentators and most others who hold beliefs similar to yours are not only pretty far out there.
Actually, I should correct that last comment.
Last clause of the 2nd paragraph should read: "but so terribly misguided and wrong that it raises strong questions about the moral compass of many in the vegan movement."
Doesn't pretty much everyone (subjectively) consider themselves morally superior? I mean if one is aware of a what seems like a better moral system, one typically adopts it….
Well, thats an interesting point Emily.
I'd rather remain at the top of the food chain as a happy omnivore able to adopt quickly to the changing environment and capable of consuming and utilizing all that mother nature has provided for my benefit. I don't consider myself in this regard to be morally superior to anyone, but rather just try to live my life and make decisions within the bounds of my own moral framework (based upon my outlook of how we (or I) fit in the larger scheme of things and want I need to undertake for my own well being). I trust that others out there have their own morals that they follow but would never profess that mine were superior to theirs, (or accept the notion that somehow theirs were superior to mine or anyone elses).
Each is what it is. If Mary Martin, PhD doesn't want to eat meat, thats fine by me (you can pass me her share).
But the misguided notion that this choice, taken in the safety and comfort of a suburban utopia generally devoid in the very hort term of the harsh realities of either evolution or the need to compete directly as part of the natural – wild – foodchain is somehow morally superior to mine because its framed in some warm and fuzzy language is patently offensive. This is especially true when the logical conclusion that it leads to if adopted on anything resembling a large scale isn't utopia but environmental degradation, hunger and starvation, and violent death.
countertop, you seem to demand tolerance without demonstrating it–which rather weakens the position. You clearly imply negative things about the people who disagree with you that are about as derogatory as the things they have implied about you. e.g. that they are naive and not bright enough to have thought through the consequences of their choices.
In my experience any argument based on attributing traits to the person (not the idea) is on that will achieve little more than pointless acrimony.
"In my experience any argument based on attributing traits to the person (not the idea) is on that will achieve little more than pointless acrimony."
Yes, and isn't it grand that none of the vegans posting here ever do such a thing.
Have a great day!
~ Boyd, whose moral code allows for the Holocaust, apparently
So when it's convenient for you, you attempt to justify your exploitation of the other animals appealing to our supposed “superiority" as species (like we are moral agents and they are not). And when our supposed “superiority” as species becomes an obstacle to what you want to do with the other animals, you suddenly consider yourself as nothing more than another species of wild animal, as entitled as wolves to chase deer, as if you were another amoral part of the natural-wild-food chain. It seems a little bit contraditory.
Boyd and countertop:
What you guys are wasting your time here for, I don’t know, but it is entertaining to read your rants. 🙂 Your tone of indignation against certain vegans (i.e. that certain arrogant a-hole, Dan, and some others on this blog) leads me to believe that we’ve touched a nerve. Sorry ‘bout dat. I hope your egos feel better by next week. Have fun telling the blog operator how reasonable she is and me and others how unreasonable and “out there” we are, when she mostly, if not entirely, agrees with us. I know I’ll have fun reading it. Human psychology is a hoot!
First, about the so-called "comparison" of eating meat to the Holocaust. I believe the poster meant that a mentality which regards individual and culture persuasions as moral can condone atrocities in the extreme. The poster wasn't comparing meat eaters to the Nazis.
And in principle I think the poster was right– if morals are thought to be whatever serves the interests of individuals and/or societies, we're really left with no morals at all.
Second, about comparing meat eating to dogfighting. I didn't raise the issue, but I think it's a good example of how we value some non-human animals more than others– in fact, some humans more than others. Although dogfighting is strongest among white Southern males, it's often associated with minority groups. And there is a tendency to punish animal abuse if it's associated with minorities, while overlooking what the elites do, or what our culture regards as acceptable.
Importantly, though, this is not the realm of animal rights. It goes back to the beginning of animal protectionism– i.e., activism which tries to modify animal husbandry. It was always an elitist movement, intent on prosecuting the lower economic classes, while condoning abuse by the affluent. As Harriet Ritvo explains in "The Animal Estate", controlling the animals of the lower classes was a way of controlling the people. Vick happens to be wealthy but he still belongs to a racial minority. Need I say more?
Mary explains she wants people to make choices based on factual information and science, rather than on culture, tradition, or preference. I agree, and I think this means we have to reject a value system that's frought with bias and selfish interest.
Since you're here, Dan, do you agree with my understanding of what you meant about the Holocaust?
I don't have to call you names, Dan. By your own words, you make it apparent what you are.
And it's not because of what you believe, it's how you behave. I doubt you've managed to persuade many non-vegans to adopt your lifestyle with the approach you take. And even if you have convinced large numbers to join you in abolitionist veganism, imagine how many more you could convince by communicating with respect.
Ellie,
Yes, that is what I meant. In fact, I just wrote the following before I read your post, which basically says the same thing:
For the record, it’s fairly obvious that you guys are not Nazis, nor do you agree with what the Nazis did. My point was not to compare you to Nazis, but to say that you have very little room to criticize them if you arbitrarily select “in groups” from “out groups” without a morally relevant characteristic that all and only that group lacks for justification, which is precisely what the Nazis did.
Boyd:
I’m more direct and to the point than many vegans are, and I’ll admit that I’m not particularly sensitive to what the cultural biases, especially politically conservative biases like yours, dictate about how ARAs should “behave.” You’ve taken what I’ve said to be offensive, and it plays in your favor to take that stance of indignation, since reason is not on your side. But everything I’ve said here has been based in consistent moral reasoning. That you’re offended by the consequences of your own thinking is not my problem.
"I'd rather remain at the top of the food chain as a happy omnivore able to adopt quickly to the changing environment and capable of consuming and utilizing all that mother nature has provided for my benefit."
Countertop, aside from the fact that a chain doesn't have a top (maybe you're thinking of the food pyramid), there seems to be a rather large gap between your position and the reality of what you actually do. The problem with human beings is that we are more than capable of over-consuming and over-utilizing our natural environment and indeed have done so to catastrophic levels. So if your idea of adapting is to keep on doing the same old thing despite the consequences, then you are out of touch with reality. Anyway, you can't justify doing something because of a hypothetical "changing environment", do you go around beating up other guys to assert that you're an alpha male and you want to be ready for "the changing environment"? . Being vegan doesn't mean we're not "capable of consuming and utilizing all that mother nature has provided" (for your benefit as you so arrogantly put it), it just means we know that it is unnecessary for us to kill other sentient creatures in order to live, it's that simple.
"But the misguided notion that this choice, taken in the safety and comfort of a suburban utopia generally devoid in the very short term of the harsh realities of either evolution or the need to compete directly as part of the natural – wild – foodchain is somehow morally superior to mine because its framed in some warm and fuzzy language is patently offensive."
I'm not sure if no one responded to this because they're ignoring you, or like me they didn't know where to start on this load of nonsense. First off, why in the hell would it make sense for Mary, or anyone else in the suburbs to justify eating animal products because of "evolution", "the wild" or "the food chain". Secondly, although they aren't vegan, there's a good 300 million vegetarians in India, a lot of whom sure as hell don't live in the suburbs. And if you're talking about warm and fuzzy language you should look in your own back yard. How many (non-hunting) omnivores do you know who've watched video's of slaughterhouse footage, read detailed descriptions of animal abuse and death, how many have taken a cold hard look at what their dietary and lifestyle choices mean for animals. Your lack of research is patently offensive (even a cursory glance at this site would show a lot of fairly straight talk about animal use, abuse, death and barely any "warm and fuzzy language".
"This is especially true when the logical conclusion that it leads to if adopted on anything resembling a large scale isn't utopia but environmental degradation, hunger and starvation, and violent death."
You can't actually be serious can you?
Unfortunately, I think Countertop was serious, and again that speaks for ignorance. But as you said, the ethic of veganism is so abundantly simple, I think it's no wonder hunters and other animal consumers don't want to talk about it. Evolution, "the wild", and the so-called "top of the food chain" have nothing to do with it, and for that matter these excuses don't even support meat eating.