h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I've been running into some interesting ethical dilemmas lately.

Being as I am a trainee philosopher, I'm getting taught to seek the rationality behind everything, and lately I've been turning that onto myself. You may [or may not] know that I've been a vegetarian for around eleven years now. So a part of what I've been doing is assessing why I'm a vegetarian. I can put that down to several main areas, in order of importance:

1) Human rights [many meatpacking plants are highly neglectful of their workers, and have poor union support]
2) Deforestation [large cattle ranches, and other large livestock facilities, cause deforestation, and often cause the land to become barren]
3) Water Waste/ Pollution [it takes far more to irrigate crops for livestock; we could cut out a step of water waste by using the crops for ourselves. Livestock cause air pollution, and water pollution, largely from the amount of excriment they produce]
4) Non-humane animal conditions [the regular horror stories; most of which can be avoided by small-farm produce]

There are a few others, but that's the general gist. The thing that struck me, though, on sitting and working through all this... where's the insects, fish and seafood, huh?

This is kind of troubling, to me. I mean, I can score fish straight off just because of all the concerns of over-fishing harming the environment, but it seems that I can't fully justify why seafood and insects shouldn't be eaten. The farming of both is more humane and less pollutant than livestock. Does this mean I should break my vegetarianism? After all, I've never said that eating meat is "wrong", I've always been more pro-reducing meat eating; and it seems that replacing with a more efficient protein source is a good way forward.

What's a gal to do?


EE

in my opinion you do enough. you have open mind to change.

every one needs find their own area of empowerment and improvement in any area. I use less electric the past few years. I try to spread a meme A573040 for inspirational and positive organisations on the net.

use creativeness and imagination to find your solutions in your area...

Hi EE,


[What's a gal to do?]

Complete the argument.

Starting with

1. I need to eat

You could adduce quite a few arguments against eating anything, for, for instance, nearly everything we eat has to be killed or found to have died or been killed (scavenged) first (including lovely little lettuces - aah), so this would be an essential first step.

Jab

Thanks for your words Phel

And Jabberwock.. I've been pondering what you've suggested. I mean, for me that sentence can neatly be concluded "ethically", but I'm not sure that's quite your meaning.
I mean, the basic tennant of my vegetarianism isn't about things being killed, per se, it's about the consequences of mass farming, and my many other environmental concerns [mixed in with a little sympathy, and the general philosophy that "if I wouldn't kill it myself, I shouldn't eat it"]

Just enjoy

Have Fun

Do you, though, adopt teh same ethical values on to other areas other than food?; E.g., about the working conditions of people in the food industry, the same coudl be said of people working in factorys soldering/putting/assemgling computers, making clothes, etc...
And, thinking about it, do the mushroom pickers over in ireland on a pitance of a wage, have any better working conditions than those in a meat processing faactory/production line?
Also, for some, the facotry work, such as production lines making cars, assemling electrical goods, packing peas, burgers, etc., is one of the few livelyhoods they can do... I know members of my family have at times worked in vaguely jobs of this nature, but useually not* at the production line level itself

No offence intended, I’m from miners stock so I know about earning your living

Have Fun

Hey 2Legs:
A lot of your concerns are very true, and yes, they are other things I try to account for, where possible. The big difference, though, between working at a meat-packing plant, and say, mushroom picking, is the significantly higher incidence of severe personal harm. The average turnover for a meatpacking plant in the US is/was 200% [I think my figures might be a bit dated, but still, that's a lot higher even than most factory jobs]

I've done a little work myself in factory lines, but not manufacture. A lot of the kind of jobs you do in manufacturing household items are boring, repetitive, and highly underpaid, but not really mortally dangerous in the same way meatpacking is. I've no idea what working on a techy production line would be like. It's also another reason why some organic schemes are a bit better than otherwise: precut/packed lettuce, of all things, can have some quite nasty workers accidents if it's done by hand [there's still a place near me that does it that way]. I'm not saying production lines in general are bad - a good portion of my own family still work in that area - it's just some jobs are a lot more dangerous than others, which is especially bad if you couple it with poor healthcare and pensions.

Apologies for buting in.

Have Fun

Hi, EE!


So your argument from Post 4 is:

1. I need to eat
2. I find my need is satisfied without eating meat.
3. Therefore I do not eat meat.
4. But there is insufficient reason in 1-2 for not eating meat. 1 and 2 can be true, but do not necessarily lead to statement 3.

So 3 needs further argument.
1. Eating meat entails danger to workers.
2. Therefore I do not eat meat.
To which it could be replied that if 1 were rendered false, by improved working conditions, then you would be bound by your own argument to start eating meat, as the objection has been removed.

1. I am not concerned with the need to kill animals to obtain meat.
2. Therefore I eat meat.

This is an argument you reject, correctly. It is in fact fallacious, since 1 is, you assert, true but 2 is false. Instead you claim

1. I have a certain sympathy with the animals.
2. This influences my choice not to eat meat.

A softer argument, but both statements are true. The trouble is, the statements (1) conflict with one another. You cannot be unconcerned yet have sympathy.

Instead of working on this contradiction you state that since you could not kill the animals yourself (thus informally supporting the sympathy statement and denying the 'unconcerned' statement) you feel you are obliged, morally, (since you label this as an ethical dilemma), not to eat their meat. But what about other things? If you couldn't make cars, could you still drive them? Or, a closer analogy, if you could not perform some medical procedures out of feeling or disgust, for example heart operations, would that debar you from benefiting from them? I'm sure you can think of many other examples.

You then adduce another different argument.

1. I have certain unstated environmental concerns.
2. These affect my choice not to eat meat.

Some clarification is still needed as to why exactly you are a vegetarian (since your first argument is insufficient, your 'sympathy' conflicts with your 'unconcern', and you do not state what your environmental concerns are).

Since you are studying philosophy, you will know that this is how philosophy, at least logical philosophy, works.

Hope this helps. Have fun!

Jabs

Hi Jabs!
That was a pretty amazing breakdown, thankyou for arranging it that way! Sometimes I do find it hard to pick out the logical manifestations of my arguments, I have to admit.

I would say, though, that the analogy you drew there with meat / surgery isn't entirely valid. Hunting for meat isn't really a specialist knowledge in the same way. It also doesn't seem to have any clear-cut beneficial outcome in the same way that driving a car or performing heart surgery does. It also doesn't carry the same moral weight or implications: admittedly, car driving in this day and age could well be a poor moral decision for an environmentalist, but performing heart surgery is, in most cases, an obviously good moral decision. It seems that the cost and benefit of eating meat [at least, in the way our culture as a whole consumes it] doesn't entirely balance out, given the only real benefit I can come up with is that some people have iron deficiencies, or other bodily deficiencies, which would require them to consume meat products.

I guess there is also the whole issue of medical testing on animals.. but I have to admit, I think in most cases that's acceptable.

OK, EE, the analogies may or may not have been poor, although hunting for meat can help the tribe when the crop fails. Or even because it's a meat-eating tribe. But does it really affect the argument? Really?? It's only an illustration. I did ask you to think of your own.

How about Hitler shouldn't be shot because I couldn't do it personally?

Think about the arguments, don't lose your focus by means of the red herring of the examples. It's not really that important if these are good or bad.

Read through the arguments, if you have time. They're summed up by this conclusion -

"Some clarification is still needed as to why exactly you are a vegetarian (since your first argument is insufficient, your 'sympathy' conflicts with your 'unconcern', and you do not state what your environmental concerns are)." (And in particular, why, morally you are a vegetarian.)

This, I would argue, was established by looking at your arguments closely in the Posting.

Enjoy! (If that's the right word). [Hint ~1: your central contradiction is between 'sympathy' and 'unconcern'. Hint ~2: Animal rights?]

Jabs.


btw - which year are you in, and where?

I think the issue is that I'm not looking for a prescriptive or normalising standard by which to make vegetarianism the best option. If it makes things any clearer, I'm really a virtue ethicist. I'm certainly not saying that nobody should kill something I wouldn't.. I'm just saying I shouldn't make someone else do something I wouldn't on my behalf! There are cases where I would if I could [like perform heart surgery] and cases where I just plain wouldn't [like hunting rabbits].

I did briefly allude to my environmental concerns, though I admit I didn't explain them in depth. I'm going to copy/paste my arguments from a different board to give you a better idea:

"1) The way the majority of animals are farmed is highly unethical. Not just for the general conditions in which the animals are kept, but for the people who work at such facilities. I recommend going away and reading Fast Food Nation if you want this point explicated better. People employed at such facilities are working high-risk jobs, for minimum wage, without health or union benefits. I'm talking human rights, here, not animal rights. Solution to this is either again, to cut down, or to start demanding higher prices. Yes. Higher prices, so that the bottom end workers get what they deserve.

2) The amount of water we use in the process of rearing livestock is immense, and with the current state of the planet, not really so easily justifiable. Yes, annoyingly, a lot of that goes toward irrigating crops, but we can cut a level of water usage out by cutting out [or at least down on] meat.

3) Deforestation and cattle rearing at least used to be a frequently raised issue. Not sure what the attitude to that is now. The basic problem, for those not familiar, is the cutting down of vast areas of forest to make into suitable cattle rearing ground. Stripped of its natural vegetation, the soil becomes easily eroded and damaged, and if really uncared for, infertile. Which means no grazing material grows, which means we have to clear some more woodland... The Solution to this is really looking into sustainable development options.

...
Ours raised a great point about the production of milk, and I do think that's one of the biggest flaws in a lot of vegetarians arguments. Personally, I avoid high milk consumption, and try to overall have a rate of 50:50 between milk and soy alternatives."

I don't know if that clears anything up? But thankyou very much for your input

I'm a final year UG at Warwick. Also, very continentally influenced.

You obviously don't need or want me to keep on, especially in your final year, but your objections don't appear to be to eating meat but to the way the industry is organised, and its effects.

And in the absence of these objections, if they were removed by better practices, with no other argument forthcoming, you would be committed to eating meat to remain logically consistent. I suspect, though, that there is another argument that you either brought forth before or you haven't brought forth yet.

If you're interested in continental philosophy, try this: A656787, (mine), on Heidegger.

I used to lecture in philosophy at London. I am a vegetarian too, because I don't like meat.

Good luck with your courses. (Although I'm not saying goodbye - we're still friends on h2g2).

Jabs

Thanks for that! It's very useful to have your opinion. It's far easier to philosophically analyse things you're not invested in [I find]

Link is quite useful. I'm writing on Heidegger's Aesthetics at the moment, and getting in quite a tangle! What is / was your specialist area, if you don't mind me asking?

I tended to flit around Perception and Consciousness, Human Being, and a passion for epistemology and informal logic. Mainly epistemology. Oh, and with that, scientific method. They would all go together, advancing and receding, on a 3D mind map - honest!


Jab

And the Heidegger was stolen to form the heart of someone's PhD. I was quite flattered more than anything, because it genuinely consisted of my original thought and didn't take me long to think and write. (I have evidence).

Very interesting in scientific method myself [that's how I got into the whole philosophy shebang]. The way they taught the epistemology course this year left a lot to be desired, though. Quite disappointing.

Many things are curiously interconnected! Isn't that the fun!