RE: Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?
April 18, 2012 at 9:03 am
(This post was last modified: April 18, 2012 at 9:28 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Compelling human behavior seems to be very much like herding cats. Even more so if you hope that logic is the thing that's going to accomplish this.
If we focus on food production and ethics specifically we see this writ large. There are standards written into law that prescribe ways which people "ought" to treat their livestock. They have been formed in order to prevent that "unnecessary suffering" which you've pinned your claims on (this being a phrase with a hell of alot of leeway btw, that's putting it nicely), and yet they are not always followed. This is due largely to the cost involved. Now, I would personally say that if a producer is incapable of meeting the requirements set forth by law then they have no business in the business, leave it to those who are capable.
On the other hand, when a producer does meet these requirements then how can they be said to be acting unethically, or in a morally questionable fashion? How can the consumer of their products be said to be acting unethically, or in a morally questionable fashion? This is the crux of what I've been questioning you about, is "unnecessary suffering" actually some sort of absolute you've based your argument on or is it a weasel phrase that allows you include or exclude a behavior based on a rationalized emotional response? Producing food would seem to be very neccessary, and lengths are gone to in this act to avoid what has been defined as "unneccessary suffering", but, apparently, those lengths are not good enough. Is it actually "unnecessary suffering" that you have an issue with, or just suffering?
That we have to eat is a demonstrable absolute. That livestock production (or exploiting animals in some way even in the absence of livestock) provides an important and (at present) irreplaceable cog in this machine of survival (and not just when it comes to food) is a demonstrable absolute. What does or does not constitute "uneccessary suffering" is no such thing, and you don't seem to be very clear on what is included or excluded yourself, or the lengths we've gone to provide a pragmatic solution to an idealistic concern with regards to animal welfare. You made the comment "if we could grow a steak" which would seem to imply to me that no livestock production system could possibly meet you're requirements, well, that blows the "uneccessary suffering" bit right out of the water. You've taken an absolute stance on an issue while arguing for something else entirely (and I suspect that you choose to argue for this other thing because it seems more pragmatic to argue for in the first place). "Unnecessary suffering" allows you to appear to leave the door open in argument when in reality you've bolted the thing closed, and then walled up the threshold, choosing to call it reason or logic after the fact, and after arguing for something else entirely. Positions like this are the reason I make statements like the one I opened this post with.
Something is going to "suffer" if we are going to eat. The "unnecessary suffering" rationalization (and that's what it is) accepts this. You can define away the "suffering" of plants or ecosystems when it comes to agriculture along the lines of self awareness, and that's fine. You are still left with "necessary suffering" among "sentient species" who are exploited by ag as readily as by livestock production, but consideration for these species is already written into law here. You can take issue to the suffering of animals in dedicated livestock production insomuch as it is not "necessary" but this is also already written into law here. Either dietary/lifestyle decision involves the suffering of sentient creatures, either route already has a hefty set of laws aligned to our sense of ethics and morality. Neither one can be said to be more exploitative, or to cause "more unnecessary suffering" than the other, as they are two sides of the very same coin. So, where's the beef?
(I know I know, a pun is the lowest form of humor)
(All this discussion about suffering or exploitation by the way and not once have we touched on the creature that suffers and is exploited the most when it comes to food production. That would be ourselves. Why is that?)
If we focus on food production and ethics specifically we see this writ large. There are standards written into law that prescribe ways which people "ought" to treat their livestock. They have been formed in order to prevent that "unnecessary suffering" which you've pinned your claims on (this being a phrase with a hell of alot of leeway btw, that's putting it nicely), and yet they are not always followed. This is due largely to the cost involved. Now, I would personally say that if a producer is incapable of meeting the requirements set forth by law then they have no business in the business, leave it to those who are capable.
On the other hand, when a producer does meet these requirements then how can they be said to be acting unethically, or in a morally questionable fashion? How can the consumer of their products be said to be acting unethically, or in a morally questionable fashion? This is the crux of what I've been questioning you about, is "unnecessary suffering" actually some sort of absolute you've based your argument on or is it a weasel phrase that allows you include or exclude a behavior based on a rationalized emotional response? Producing food would seem to be very neccessary, and lengths are gone to in this act to avoid what has been defined as "unneccessary suffering", but, apparently, those lengths are not good enough. Is it actually "unnecessary suffering" that you have an issue with, or just suffering?
That we have to eat is a demonstrable absolute. That livestock production (or exploiting animals in some way even in the absence of livestock) provides an important and (at present) irreplaceable cog in this machine of survival (and not just when it comes to food) is a demonstrable absolute. What does or does not constitute "uneccessary suffering" is no such thing, and you don't seem to be very clear on what is included or excluded yourself, or the lengths we've gone to provide a pragmatic solution to an idealistic concern with regards to animal welfare. You made the comment "if we could grow a steak" which would seem to imply to me that no livestock production system could possibly meet you're requirements, well, that blows the "uneccessary suffering" bit right out of the water. You've taken an absolute stance on an issue while arguing for something else entirely (and I suspect that you choose to argue for this other thing because it seems more pragmatic to argue for in the first place). "Unnecessary suffering" allows you to appear to leave the door open in argument when in reality you've bolted the thing closed, and then walled up the threshold, choosing to call it reason or logic after the fact, and after arguing for something else entirely. Positions like this are the reason I make statements like the one I opened this post with.
Something is going to "suffer" if we are going to eat. The "unnecessary suffering" rationalization (and that's what it is) accepts this. You can define away the "suffering" of plants or ecosystems when it comes to agriculture along the lines of self awareness, and that's fine. You are still left with "necessary suffering" among "sentient species" who are exploited by ag as readily as by livestock production, but consideration for these species is already written into law here. You can take issue to the suffering of animals in dedicated livestock production insomuch as it is not "necessary" but this is also already written into law here. Either dietary/lifestyle decision involves the suffering of sentient creatures, either route already has a hefty set of laws aligned to our sense of ethics and morality. Neither one can be said to be more exploitative, or to cause "more unnecessary suffering" than the other, as they are two sides of the very same coin. So, where's the beef?
(I know I know, a pun is the lowest form of humor)
(All this discussion about suffering or exploitation by the way and not once have we touched on the creature that suffers and is exploited the most when it comes to food production. That would be ourselves. Why is that?)
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
