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

Argh, I liked it better when I was a student and I could spend as long as I liked reading h2g2 during the day. Anyway, quick word:

"If you treat humans as more important than animals presumably you have a basis for doing so."

Not really, because my basis for treating them as different is not principled, it's practical and political.

There was another point I wanted to add about how the balance changes over time. I don't think any of us would argue that - say - the starving caveman shouldn't eat the slow moving juicy delicious animal just outside his cave. In that situation, morality doesn't come into it, it's just survival. Morality then is a luxury of the well off society, and as we become more well off, we can be more moral. That's why I think that in the future we will treat animals better, but that we can't expect people to prioritise that now when there are much more serious people problems to deal with. Politics is about the relationship between citizens, and animals cannot be citizens.

>but that we can't expect people to prioritise that now when there are much more serious people problems to deal with<

I agree with this, in regards to the developing world. I think most developed countries can afford to make it a high priority, however. If they choose not to, it's because there are a small minority of people who put money above *all* life, besides their own. If healthy, non-animal food cost less and dead cow on a bun cost enough to be prohibitive for most people, everyone would win.

And now it's 5:30 and time for me to leave for work...

>>The same used to be true of society tolerating slavery or regarding women as inferior. Modern attitudes to both are completely different to the norm for all of human history.

I don't buy that. If I hold that I can make another my slave, recipricocity suggests that someone can make me a slave. Slavery violates 'The Golden Rule'.

If I hold that animals shouild not be harmed, recipricocity does not hold that animals can choose not to harm me. We are mutually incapable of reciprocating The Golden Rule.

(I appreciate that cows, sheep, chickens probably won't harm me, but it's their moral capacity I'm talking about).



PC:
I appreciate that you agree with PC, BC and Math. What I'm trying to pick at is the basis for your mutual agreement. Does it go beyond personal preference? Are there any moral consequences for our disagreement?

I totally agree that scruples about eating meat are a luxury of the relatively affluent. When your diet is mostly rice or some other staple every scrap of protein is important.

Then again I wouldn't blame a starving person for stealing a loaf of bread. Wouldn't make it right for me to do so.


Ed, I can't see how recipricocity enters into morality. There are people out there who don't recipricate my morals. It might justify my being cautious in my dealings with them but it wouldn't justify doing it to them before they do it to me.

>Does it go beyond personal preference? Are there any moral consequences for our disagreement?<

I think so. For me, it's not just a matter of personal taste. I used to *enjoy* the taste and texture of some animal byproducts. I've actively sought out non-animal substitutes because, to me, it is more than a matter of personal taste.

There are moral consequences; the suffering and/or eventual death of another sentient being, exploited for our own ends. Some people can live with that. I can live with them living with it. But just because something has always been done- the reference to slavery was a good example- doesn't mean it's ethical. Unfortunately, just because something is unethical doesn't necessarily mean I have any other choice.

I have mentioned that I don't blame anyone- human or other animal- for doing what's needed to survive. I do what I have to. I use life-saving medicine that in all likelihood was manufactured by a comapny that performs reprehensible animal tests. Causing my own death by refusing to use my inhaler isn't going to make them stop. Hopefully, leading by example and pleading with these companies to change their policies might. And the first company that does so will get *all* of my business; even if it costs me a *lot* more financially, at least there's less cost to fellow living creatures.

PC
>>the suffering and/or eventual death of another sentient being, exploited for our own ends.

I fear we're not yet at the bottom of it. But what's wrong with exploiting another sentient being. Emotive words. Is it the 'exploitation' or the 'sentience' that's at issue? Is it anything other than it not feeling right? Again...homosexual sex doesn't 'feel right' to some people. (Not enough lube? )

BC
>>I can't see how recipricocity enters into morality. There are people out there who don't recipricate my morals. It might justify my being cautious in my dealings with them but it wouldn't justify doing it to them before they do it to me.

However...you could justifiably insist on your right to proper treatment to be upheld, and civilised society exists because other people would back you up. (At least, that's the principle. I'm not saying it always works). They would also stop you getting your retaliation in first. I don't see this as being the case between leopards and zebras or leopards and humans.



You give good debate, guys. Everyone's saying desperately sensible things. Leaving aside the animal aspects, I think this is an excellent issue for unpacking a basis for human morality.

Hi Eddie

Just a quickie between kid-centred taxi-ing...

"Can we tolerate as society in which animals are regarded as inferior? We already do and have always done so."

Hmmm...

1834: Can we tolerate as society in which africans are regarded as inferior? We already do and have always done so.

1936: Can we tolerate as society in which jews are regarded as inferior? We already do and have always done so.

2007: Can we tolerate as society in which africans are regarded as inferior? We already do and have always done so.


Sorry but the 'we do because we always have' just doesn't wash.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Hear, hear, Math!

Edward, for me, it's not so much a matter of what feels good. It's a matter of my feeling that we should treat other sentient beings they way we would ourselves like to be treated *whether or not they are willing/able to reciprocate*.

I think I've already answered that point when BC made it. Yes - it is to do with recipricocity, basically. But note that I'm quite happy to accept emotional preference as a subsidiary.

Let's try another tack, to tease out whether 'dominionism' is OK. Try this thought experiment:

There's a refugee camp in Darfur. In its store, it has just enough grain to feed all the refugees until the next delivery of relief. However, there is an infestation of rats and they are rapidly eating the food. Are the people morally entitled to kill (and eat) the rats? Explain your reasoning.

Hint - if the rats are spared, they're unlikely to reciprocate.

I can't make that judgement- I'm not a refugee and am unlikely to ever be. But I think I've already stated that if it came down to *my* survival or another living creature, human animal or otherwise, I'd do what I had to do in order to survive and would live with the consequences. So, if I needed to kill the rats to eat or else I would starve, then I would. Just like if I were stranded on a mountain top with another human being, it'd be perfectly moral for me to kill and eat that person rather than starve. If spared, the other person is unlikely to reciprocate, no?

<>

Yes. The rats are a direct threat to the refugees lives.
Of course if the rats had a POV they'd probably feel perfectly entitled to eat the refugees food. Recipricocity would only come into it if the rats had also been supplied with food but were still eating the refugees food
Humans don't treat animals in a reciprical manner, they treat the animals as something for their convenience regardless of what the animal has done. Your reciprical argument could be used in defence of killing predators or vermin but i can't see how it applies to the food animals that suffer most from our attentions.

OK - so once we've established that it is not fundamentally immoral to deem humans as taking precedence over rats in some circumstances - surely we've "already established that we're whores and are simply negotiating the price."? It's a matter of where we make the trade-off between animal suffering and human benefit.

Maybe I've confused everyone (and myself) slightly with the notion of recipricocity. Sure, it's wrong to say that just because animals can't act a certain way we needn't. That amounts to doing it to them before they do it to us. But what I'm trying to establish is the place of morality in a morally neutral universe. As far as I can see, morality is a construct developed amongst humans for regulating matters that impact on our lives. We could not say that it is immoral for those rats to eat the grain, for a leopard to eat a zebra or even for a leopard to eat us. Regrettable - maybe. But not immoral. Is not human exploitation of animals at worst in the 'regrettable' category? Regret is an emotion. It's a matter of (perfectly legitimate) taste.



BC:
>>Your reciprical argument could be used in defence of killing predators or vermin but i can't see how it applies to the food animals that suffer most from our attentions.

A perfectly reasonable point. Are different standards applicable between cows and rats, between cuddly kittens and spiders?

(cheekily phrased, maybe - but a serious question)



I feel I should also come back to Math's point (re Africans, Jews, etc) which I maybe dismissed too lightly.

By moral standards as I have outlined them (ie the mutual expectation that we would fulfil certain duties towards one another), murder and slavery have always been immoral acts - albeit acts that are often justified by the immoral. Can we seriously say the same about animal exploitation?

Assuming that we can - that 'speciesism' has for millennia been an unrecognised human failing - this implies that the mistreatment of animals lies on the same moral continuum as murder, enslavement, etc. etc. - all those things that negatively impact upon humans. In that case we might argue that a society that is decent in most human respects (let's say Sweden) but which nevertheless tolerates meat eating is on a par with the slavers, Nazis or neo-colonialists. Is this reasonable? Or is it a shameful cheapening of the suffering of Africans and Jews?

Is a slaughterhouse *really* equivalent to Auschwitz?

Hi Eddie

We're getting there aren't we:

"Is a slaughterhouse *really* equivalent to Auschwitz?"

Tell me the differences that make it more acceptable? The confinement, inhumane conditions, experimentation on selected individuals, transport in 'cattle trucks', the fear, the overcrowding, the seldomly quick death [whatever the industry may claim], the butchery, the eventual cannibalism...(mammals eating mammals)?

Before you answer remember that I am a hypocrite. I have hunted with snare, spear, knife, bare hands and bow, and killed and eaten my prey, raw and cooked. I have killed livestock the old way, and taken part in the post-slaughter process. I am red in tooth and claw the way most townies would cringe from.

I chose to turn away as I realised I no longer needed to be part of this. My survival did not rely on this process. Humanity does not need to be part of this process.

Think on all the various starvation crises we react to. Do the aid agencies ship in dried beef, frozen lamb or smoked hams? Not they bring in grain and dried vegetables [btw before you react in a QI predictable Alan Davies Way, properly dried meat is easier to transport, lasts longer and gives more immediate calories by weight and bulk than grain or vegetables]. The staples of the human diet are not meat. We do not need meat...

The 4th noble truth of Buddhism is the ability to face your base desires and overcome them. When will we step away from our base natures and become truly civilised?

Blessings,
Matholwch .

>>Tell me the differences that make it more acceptable?

Easy. One involves animals, te other humans.

To expand a little...surely we have a moral duty not to tolerate the torture or killing of humans? (We don't often live up to our duty - but that's by the by).

So if human and animal suffering are equivalent, we have a duty not to tolerate the torture or suffering of animals.

So what do we do about leopards and zebra?

<>

Leave it to the leopards and zebras to sort out
Just as I'm not responsible for your actions and vice versa we are not responsible for the leopards but we are responsible for our own

<>

We've agreed that morality is a human invention haven't we? That means that there are no moral constants. Slavery hasn't always been viewed as immoral. To apply current morality to a society that didn't share it is pointless.

But it still gives us a paradox. Does it mean that we should tolerate other societies or parts of our own society in which (say) the subjugation of women is considered reasonable?

Do you see what I'm getting at? If there are no external moral standards, it's up to us to construct a morality around what is good for human civilisation. In what way can animal suffering be said to negatively impact on civilisation? Human suffering - yes. If we all went around harming one another, life would be intolerable for most of us.


I do hope it hasn't been forgotten that I'm by no means arguing that we should hurt animals willy nilly. I'm just trying to establish a philosophical basis for why not. This isn't idle sophistry. It impacts on real-world questions on the circumstances in which human benefit can be judged to justify animal suffering.

Hi Eddie

>>Tell me the differences that make it more acceptable?

"Easy. One involves animals, te other humans."

Easy one involves africans, the other white people. I really don't see the difference

"To expand a little...surely we have a moral duty not to tolerate the torture or killing of humans?" (

As a longstanding supporter of Amnesty I agree totally.

"So if human and animal suffering are equivalent, we have a duty not to tolerate the torture or suffering of animals."

At last!

"So what do we do about leopards and zebra?"

Arm the Zebra... No, leopards have little choice but to eat the Zebra to survive. As predators they tend to concentrate on the old, injured and weak, actually improving the speed and endurance of the Zebra herd.

We have a choice, we do not need to kill animals to survive. We also have the sentience to realise this. So we must choose to kill and to torture or not to kill and to torture. You are our resident moralist, so which is more civilised, more 'humane'?

Blessings,
Matholwch .

A bear who eats berries...

<>

And here we start getting into typical liberal problems. Given that our morality isn't god-given or absolute do we have the right to impose it on others?

<>

I'm not convinced that what is good for human civilisation is sufficient for a moral system although it'd be a start. Still my vegetarianism is primarily a personal choice, not something I'd want to impose on others (although I would ensure the animals were treated better before being slaughtered if I could). Not even a particularly important issue to me although one where I can make a personal choice that has some effect (unlike Britians going to war in Iraq or other more important issues).

<>

I'd say it isn't civilisation until we do our best to minimise animal suffering. The Romans and other militaristic, slave-owning societies considered themselves civilised too.