ask a question

recent responses

all topics

info

⚲

Animals
Ethics

Hello philosophers, there is a vast philosophical literature that defends animal rights and vegetarianism, but the opposite camp doesn't seem to have produced much. What is the equivalent of Singer's "Animal Liberation" in the "meat eating" camp? Or is this a dead subject among philosophers, where those who care write books about the defense of animals, while those who don't simply go ahead and eat their steaks? Thanks in advance for your valuable insight.

I really don't think there's an equivalent of Animal Liberation on the other side. That's a classic because it's very clear and philosophically acute, very accessible to the public, full of information, and broad in scope. There are books on the other side, but they tend not to have all those virtues. The book that Amy Kind suggests is a good option, though it's mainly about animal experimentation, not meat-eating. Another book on the other side is The Animals Issue , by Peter Carruthers. It's clearly written and some would say acute, but it's primarily oriented to the academic philosopher. It's nowhere near as readable as Animal Liberation and it's not a source for "real world" information about the treatment of animals. Carruthers wouldn't be interested in such things, since he argues animals don't suffer at our hands--they're not even conscious, on his view. A very accessible and pretty interesting book on the other side by a non-philosopher is Covenant of the Wild : ...
Animals
Ethics

There is much written on veganism and vegetarianism and the morality of eating animals. The human animal is an omnivore; eating is basic to survival; our dentition and digestive tracts are adapted for meat as well as plants. This is our condition. There is an answer excusing peoples from agriculturally poor countries (and I would add the Inuit) yet, lacking suitable abattoirs, their trapping and/or killing of animals would be seen as cruel by our delicate western standards. If this is morally acceptable, what is "unacceptable suffering"? To whom is is unacceptable and what changes that it becomes acceptable? A vegan questioner suggested her omnivorous friend should witness the killing of an animal if he wished to eat meat. If he did and continued eating meat, would he then be exculpated? If so, where is the morality? Why should the vegan's morality be superior to the omnivore's? Should the vegan witness the grinding poverty and backbreaking work of 3rd world child agricultural labourers before eating...

There is an answer excusing peoples fromagriculturally poor countries (and I would add the Inuit) yet, lackingsuitable abattoirs, their trapping and/or killing of animals would beseen as cruel by our delicate western standards. If this is morallyacceptable, what is "unacceptable suffering"? To whom is isunacceptable and what changes that it becomes acceptable? Isn't it quite commonsensical to ask ourselves, when we are causing death and suffering, "Is it necessary or is it gratuitous?" Despite all the skepticism you express in your question, I'm going to bet you actually think that's a reasonable question. I have read that in some parts of the world dogs are tenderized while still alive, and then killed and eaten. Basically, people beat dogs to produce meat with a special, delicious taste. (If it's not actually true, at least it makes a good thought experiment.) Now, I strongly suspect you would agree with me that causing suffering in that manner is not necessary. What's the thought...
Animals
Ethics

In a hypothetical situation I am a vegan talking to a meat eater who buys his meat from a supermarket and has no interest in where it came from. I say that I don't think people have the right to eat meat unless they are willing to learn about what it takes to provide that meat, witness it first hand or even produce it for themselves. He says that he doesn't want to know where it came from and is quite happy for someone else to do the dirty work if they are happy to and does not feel at all guilty. Is he morally wrong and do I have a valid argument?

The phrase "insensitive to suffering" might mean--(1) "culpably unaware of it" or "unsympathetic to it." Or it might mean (2) "trivializing it" or "giving it too little weight." If you shoot a rabbit, that's got to cause the rabbit to suffer quite a lot. Surely there's a good chance of not achieving a "clean kill." If you think the suffering you cause is worth it, for the pleasure of eating rabbit stew, then arguably you are trivializing the animal's suffering. So you are insensitive to it in the second sense. It could be, but doesn't have to be, that you are also insensitive in the first sense. In fact, hunters I speak to (I teach an animal rights class in Texas) often seem very invested in the notion that it doesn't hurt animals much to be shot. They don't respond with sympathy to animals that surely are, in fact, suffering. Even humanely raised beef cattle do suffer--when they are branded, castrated, dehorned, and probably when they are slaughtered. I don't think we can...

If you said all of that, I think you'd be putting your point a little too strongly. I can innocently prefer not to witness how some things are produced, and prefer not to do the producing. I might just be claustrophobic, and prefer not to go down into the mines. I might hate the smell of a paper mill. It's another matter to deliberately remain in ignorance, to purposely avoid knowing whether or not some wrong is taking place. How can you convince the meat-eater to learn? I think the key concept here is complicity. If you are buying a product, then you are complicit in whatever went on to produce it. If we buy products made by child workers, we sustain those practices. If we refuse, we help bring them to an end. If necessary, you might want to resort to a thought experiment. If his favorite after shave could only be produced by torturing a thousand grandmothers, wouldn't he want to know that...and stop buying it? Hopefully you can convince your meat-eating friend that he's complict, and...
Happiness
Philosophy
Rationality

A long time ago - Jan 2006 if I'm not mistaken - Alan Soble wrote (http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/875): "Finally, the heart and soul of philosophy is argument, providing reasons for claims, including claims about morality and duties. In the answer to the question above, I cannot find a shred of argument. We should also avoid, that is, pastoral or friendly counseling. Without rigor, philosophy is nothing." That was back in the days when there was routinely more than 1 response to a question. Today's responses seem more and more to be becoming "pastoral or friendly counseling" without rigor. The panelists do not argue with each other - the responses are just accepted. Here's an example: Peter Smith wrote very recently (http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/2823): "For irrationally formed beliefs are not likely to lead to actions which get any of us what we want -- including a decent life, lived well in the knowledge of our all-too-explicable mortality." This statement - simply put out...

There does seem to be an important class of exceptions to the generalization that true belief and rational belief formation help us get what we want. It seems that forming beliefs about oneself in certain irrational ways typically leads to greater happiness. An article summarizing the evidence for that is here .
Ethics
Religion

At this point I am so familiar with a) The human propensity for religious belief b) The history and basis of the world's major religious belief systems and c) The apathetic functioning of the universe, that intellectually I am unable to adopt the anthropocentric vision of the universe as presented by the monotheistic traditions. However, watching my muslim friend pray and fast during this month of Ramadan, I am struck by how much peace, happiness and purpose her beliefs bring her and contrast it with the emptiness and meaninglessness which I feel. The fissure between our worldviews is a constant source of alienation between us. 1) Would it be ethical for me to attempt to persuade her of the veracity of atheism (regardless of whether or not she is won over to this worldview), despite my knowledge that this may adversely effect her positivity about life? 2) Failing this, should I try to swallow the blue pill of theism and attempt -emotionally rather than intellectually- to force myself into believing it's...

You seem to want to get closer to your friend by eliminating the difference between your beliefs, but there are other ways to get closer. It sounds like you are attracted to the ritual aspects of her religion. So perhaps you could ask your friend if you can join in celebrating Ramadan in some way. I used to enjoy going to midnight mass with a Catholic friend, many years ago. I enjoy having a Passover seder, though I am an atheist, and friends of mine who are Christian also enjoy the experience. I don't think these things are necessarily a sham for non-believers; they simply don't have exactly the same meaning that they do for believers. Perhaps your friend can also take an interest in your point of view. You might explain to her why you don't believe in God, if she's interested, but I see no reason for you to try to persuade her. While I do think having true beliefs is a good thing, and I do think, like you, that there is no deity, there are other competing values here. It's good that...
Philosophy

Hi, this may seem very strange but what do you love about philosophy (not specific areas, I mean essentially)? What is it to you? Please answer! Oooh I'd be so interested. I'm not trying to waste anyone's time!

I like being in the grip of a very difficult problem, and wrestling with many possible solutions. All the better if the problem has some sort of personal or practical urgency, if it's something I feel I have to figure out.
Knowledge
Religion

I'm 13 years old and I honestly don't know what to believe and it is literally driving me crazy. My mum says to stop thinking and relax but the problem is I can't, it's as if I stop thinking I'll, well, die. Knowledge is a part of me and I can't bear to let it go but I'm not sure whether there is a God and I think the only reason I ever believed is because I was afraid of what would happen to me after life. I don't fear death anymore but I hope that you will give me some answers and if Atheism is the answer.

You say: "if I stop thinking I'll, well, die"? This calls to mind that very famous idea from Descartes, "I think, therefore I am." What he means is that as long as I'm thinking, I must exist. What seems to worry you is the opposite--"If I don't think, I won't exist." But here's a very reassuring thing about Descartes' view. It doesn't matter what you think about. You can think about the existence of God or going swimming or eating ice cream, and the fact that you are thinking means you exist. In fact, what Descartes means by thinking is everything that goes on in your mind. So you can just enjoy the swimming and the ice cream, and that suffices for you to exist. In a relevant sense we even keep thinking in our sleep. Our minds are active. So closing your eyes at the end of the day isn't even anything to worry about. Of course, some things urgently need to be thought about. And maybe it seems to you as though the question of God is really urgent. But is that so? If there is an all-good...
Animals
Ethics
Happiness

I consider myself a compassionate person. Probably too compassionate, though. I have a hard time doing ANYTHING that causes death or harm to any other creature, even if it's as insignifigant as a bug, especially if it's something that is just 100% for my own pleasure, or satisfaction. Please forgive me because I know that this probably seems crazy, but this really is a problem for me. I've discussed this with other people and they have pointed out the fact that human beings seem to have a superior place in the world, and that bugs are just a part of an eco-system where they generally eat other insects, and or are food for other creatures. Even though I understand this, I find it impossible to do anything that causes them death or harm, especially things that are unimportant. For example, I have not cut my backyard all year because I know it will negatively affect the insects living there. I want to do it, but since it is only for my satisfaction I can't bring myself to do it. This is just...

What's crazy about your thinking? I see nothing crazy about it. You are following an extremely plausible moral principle--that you shouldn't cause serious harm to other creatures for trivial reasons. I think you should stick by that principle, and in fact recommend it to others! Now about the lawn. If it bothers you to have a shaggy lawn, you might want to think through how your altogether plausible moral principle applies in this case. Do you really cause serious harm by mowing the lawn? You might also want to think about how trivial it is to want a nicely groomed lawn. On the first question, it will be relevant to delve into the nature of insects. The lawnmower would do them more harm if they suffered pain or had goals or desires. But do they? Some do think so, but some don't. If you conclude they don't have such sophisticated mental states, there might still be harm (in some sense) in killing them, but mowing down insects might be like mowing down dandelions. If so, then even a...
Animals
Ethics

Most people oppose cruelty to animals. But, I have often heard people say things like 'killing is a part of life', or that our methods of killing are generally less cruel than in nature. Some have even asked whether we are obliged to mitigate such naturally occurring cruelty, if we are obliged to reduce our own. I don't think these 'arguments' are well-reasoned. My sense is that our capacity to understand the suffering that our actions cause, and consider alternatives, confers greater responsibility, making our indifference to cruelty and suffering more troublesome. Is there a more elegant and thorough way of addressing all this?

Sometimes the argument you allude to is put like this: animals kill animals, so why can't we? I've heard many people say this to justify eating chickens, pigs, lambs and the like, and that's just strange, if you think about it. Somehow because a chicken and a tiger are both "animals"--that is, non-human--the chicken is supposed to be accountable for the tiger. If people would just restrict themselves to making this sort of argument in advance of going tiger hunting, it wouldn't be so bad. But then, I think in that case your answer is a good one. Because of our big brains and our capacity for morality, we should hold ourself to a higher standard. Unless under attack or just trying to survive, I can't think of any good reason to kill a tiger.
Mind

I may want to go to the kitchen because there is some food there and I want to eat. (Suppose that.) One of these desires is a "fundamental" desire (I want to eat) and the other one is merely "derivative". Are there better words usually used to express this difference between two kinds of desires? Do you think that most desires are, as I called them, "derivative" and that there is only a small set of "fundamental" desires (like the desires to be alive, healthy, free, without pain, and loved)?

If I have a sudden hankering to eat raspberries, it strikes me that I might want not want to eat them as a means to any end. I just want to eat some raspberries. So it's not derivative in any causal sense--it's not that I want this because it's a means of getting something else, and it's not obviously a result of some other desire. But our various desires might fall into natural classes. Wanting raspberries perhaps falls into the same class as wanting chocolate, and into a different class from wanting to get together with a friend. Wanting to eat some rasperries is an "instance" (that's the word I'd use) of some general type--it's an aesthetic desire, rather than a desire for interaction. If all humans have a set of fundamental desires like this, I think the list of them is quite long, and a lot of our specific desires fall into many categories, or resist categorization.

Pages