I view other humans in the same way I view nonhuman animals: they do their own thing: follow the herd, follow instinct, whatever. I’ve never been convinced that humans actually, truly reason and act according to logical principles. Too much of their behavior is erratic and complex. Very few humans can think critically at all, let alone be persuaded by logic. Logic is for computers, not for shaping human behavior.

I may think what others do is morally repugnant, but I’m more interested in shaping/guiding/nudging the behavior into a direction that’s more peaceful and sustainable than in developing concrete philosophical positions. Quite honestly, I think that task of developing ethical theory is more suited to others in the movement than to me personally. I don’t have the intellectual stamina for it. It’s more suited to people like you, Alex

Interestingly, Peter Singer said something that stuck in my mind. Here is part of an interview:

In an earlier piece about global poverty, you argued not just that people should help others but that they should make great sacrifices to do so. In this latest version, that view has softened. What led you to revise your approach?

It is a tricky issue, and not all philosophers would agree with what I’m about to say. I think you can have a difference between what a person might privately decide they ought to do and what you might think is the best thing to advocate as a public standard. You might privately think you ought to do a lot, but if you put that out as a public standard, it might be too demanding for most people.

source: http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090308/ENTERTAINMENT/903080313

It follows that A) people who exist in otherwise baron land can morally defend eating animals (limiting this to “nonhuman animal,” however, would require a strong sub-principle most often never defended) and B) veganism truly is the moral baseline.

Therefore, I am not uncomfortable defending the latter conclusion, however, I am required by logic to also defend the former conclusion.

Quote:

“However, there is a difference in that rape and murder are not socially acceptable.”

As a pragmatic concern, I would agree with you Eccentric. However, as another pragmatic concern, categorical claims may be necessary to move this discourse forward. Equivocation implies some discomfort with one’s position.

~ Recent blog post: Animal Rights ~

~ Recent blog post: Definitely worth a listen…(Michael Pollan) ~

I believe, though, that primitive and proto-humans were probably very nearly vegan. Migration to areas that are inhospitable to plant growth would only have occured AFTER humans started exploiting animals. And areas that were previously fertile can be made barren from overgrazing of domesticated animals (and intensive monoculture).

We can’t do anything about it, now, obviously, b/c there’s not enough space for everyone to live in warm, tropical, fertile places. But I think it’s important to realize that people just didn’t show up in the arctic. They purposely went there.

I guess it’s possible that they went there not knowing how bad it was and then had to make the best of the circumstance, but I’m more inclined to think that they had to have already known how to hunt and butcher animals before they set sail, so to speak. On some level it was acceptable to them. Otherwise, they would’ve gone back where they came from where the foraging was better.

~ Recent blog post: Gardens! ~

~ Recent blog post: New obsession: oats ~

~ Recent blog post: Late Feudalism ~