As promised, here are the links I mentioned in class. First, a possible moral argument for providing meat to children: http://www.healthylivingnyc.com/article/117
Second, a link exploring the pros and cons of meat in terms of health: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/is-meat-good-or-bad-for-us-425192.html
Finally, an article on the evolution of our diet: http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/conferences/wburg/posters/sboydeaton/eaton.htm (I'm not sure how relevant this might be, but it is an interesting read, to be sure, once you've spent a bit of time translating the scientific terms.)
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
On Oppression (of Animals)
Emily asked: "Why do so many people only care about the issues of one oppressed group, instead of all of them?"
There is a simple answer to this question. To put it bluntly: if you try to do everything, you will accomplish nothing. It is far more efficient to work on one thing at a time, rather than to work at everything all at once. Hence, we have separate groups (and separate battles) to combat racism, sexism, classism, etc. I do have to question, however, whether "speciesism" is a legitimate form of oppression that needs to be addressed.
Humans certainly have a preference for their (our) own species. This is, I think, morally justifiable. We, unlike every other species, have developed highly complex languages, social structures, tools, systems of knowledge, etc, etc, etc. We have tamed the earth, fought the elements, and against all odds, we have come to dominate the earth. We alone are rational beings, we alone are moral beings, we alone rule this planet. And we have not been entirely unjust to other species. Cats, dogs, and horses have gotten a pretty nice deal -- medical care, food, comfortable shelter, companionship, all at the price of merely providing some entertainment and companionship to their human masters. How evil is that?
Have we made mistakes? Naturally. We are only human. We are not gods (though we come closer to this status every day). But, we can improve. Just because we have done cruel things to the animals we eat does not mean we must therefore swear off meat entirely. We can change our systems, put tight regulations on the meat industry, and boycott the industry if they refuse to acquiesce. But should we fundamentally change our relationship with animals as masters? I think not.
To end with a question: Considering the relative fluidity of moral values, what is the purpose of trying to argue against meat from a moral perspective?
There is a simple answer to this question. To put it bluntly: if you try to do everything, you will accomplish nothing. It is far more efficient to work on one thing at a time, rather than to work at everything all at once. Hence, we have separate groups (and separate battles) to combat racism, sexism, classism, etc. I do have to question, however, whether "speciesism" is a legitimate form of oppression that needs to be addressed.
Humans certainly have a preference for their (our) own species. This is, I think, morally justifiable. We, unlike every other species, have developed highly complex languages, social structures, tools, systems of knowledge, etc, etc, etc. We have tamed the earth, fought the elements, and against all odds, we have come to dominate the earth. We alone are rational beings, we alone are moral beings, we alone rule this planet. And we have not been entirely unjust to other species. Cats, dogs, and horses have gotten a pretty nice deal -- medical care, food, comfortable shelter, companionship, all at the price of merely providing some entertainment and companionship to their human masters. How evil is that?
Have we made mistakes? Naturally. We are only human. We are not gods (though we come closer to this status every day). But, we can improve. Just because we have done cruel things to the animals we eat does not mean we must therefore swear off meat entirely. We can change our systems, put tight regulations on the meat industry, and boycott the industry if they refuse to acquiesce. But should we fundamentally change our relationship with animals as masters? I think not.
To end with a question: Considering the relative fluidity of moral values, what is the purpose of trying to argue against meat from a moral perspective?
Monday, March 8, 2010
The Executive Coup Against the Constitution
http://www.grittv.org/2010/03/05/the-most-dangerous-man-in-america/
This video lays out a wonderful explanation of what essentially is the situation we find ourselves in now -- an executive branch given virtually-monarchical powers to run and expand the American Empire, rubber-stamped by a complacent and corrupt congress, and supported by the courts.
To end with a question: What are your thoughts on the policies of the last eight years? Was it an executive coup against the constitution, as Mr. Ellsberg suggests, or perhaps something else?
This video lays out a wonderful explanation of what essentially is the situation we find ourselves in now -- an executive branch given virtually-monarchical powers to run and expand the American Empire, rubber-stamped by a complacent and corrupt congress, and supported by the courts.
To end with a question: What are your thoughts on the policies of the last eight years? Was it an executive coup against the constitution, as Mr. Ellsberg suggests, or perhaps something else?
Sunday, March 7, 2010
The Meaning of Life (For Animals)
Becky asked, "what is the meaning of live for animals?"
I think this is the wrong question to ask. It's a very anthropocentric question, tied in to our species' fetish for having meaning and purpose. If something has no meaning or purpose, then it is useless. The question of the meaning of life may have some bearing on humans, who have the ability to understand and contemplate such things, but it is inappropriate to ask of animals.
Take, for example, cows. They eat grass. All day. (How this is a sad truth is beyond me.) What is the meaning of their lives? Simply, to exist. Do animals really need a meaning beyond that? Is an animal's life unfulfilled if it does not live up to some sort of "meaning?" I do not think so. Survival and perpetuation of the species. That is the purpose of an animal. But to try to apply some romanticized, human notion of a meaning of life is absurd.
Perhaps cows are not the best example, then. Let us look at wolves. Wolves have a sort of basic society. The pack is led by the alphas, who get first pick of the food, and prioritized breeding. The rest of the pack is subordinate to the alphas, who attain their position by means of their being the biggest, strongest animals in the pack. In a way, they are not all that unlike primitive human society. So what is the meaning of life for these animals? The same as the cows above -- to exist, to survive and perpetuate their species. They certainly have more complex mechanisms to do so than cows, but that does not change their basic nature.
To end with an (unrelated) question: Is "meaning" a necessity for life?
I think this is the wrong question to ask. It's a very anthropocentric question, tied in to our species' fetish for having meaning and purpose. If something has no meaning or purpose, then it is useless. The question of the meaning of life may have some bearing on humans, who have the ability to understand and contemplate such things, but it is inappropriate to ask of animals.
Take, for example, cows. They eat grass. All day. (How this is a sad truth is beyond me.) What is the meaning of their lives? Simply, to exist. Do animals really need a meaning beyond that? Is an animal's life unfulfilled if it does not live up to some sort of "meaning?" I do not think so. Survival and perpetuation of the species. That is the purpose of an animal. But to try to apply some romanticized, human notion of a meaning of life is absurd.
Perhaps cows are not the best example, then. Let us look at wolves. Wolves have a sort of basic society. The pack is led by the alphas, who get first pick of the food, and prioritized breeding. The rest of the pack is subordinate to the alphas, who attain their position by means of their being the biggest, strongest animals in the pack. In a way, they are not all that unlike primitive human society. So what is the meaning of life for these animals? The same as the cows above -- to exist, to survive and perpetuate their species. They certainly have more complex mechanisms to do so than cows, but that does not change their basic nature.
To end with an (unrelated) question: Is "meaning" a necessity for life?
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Animals as Pets (and Food)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/dining/03rabbit.html
I stumbled across this article on the New York Times this evening. Since we are currently discussing the morality of eating meat, I thought this was highly appropriate (and the timing couldn't be better).
The article, in brief, touches on the history of using rabbits as a source of food. While they are generally considered a food source of last resort (except among the French), there has apparently been a recent surge in interest in the animals as food, particularly among those who may not have the room to raise other livestock animals, such as those living in the suburbs.
It does touch on an interesting bit of history. As stated in the article: "Ever since the Victorians began keeping them as pets, the relationship between the rabbit and the table has been uneasy."
It is interesting to consider the view of animals as pets that makes viewing them as food uneasy. To throw in another example (unrelated to the above article), in some Asian cultures (China most famously), dogs are cooked and eaten, a practice that many (primarily Westerners) view as cruel and inhumane.
So I pose to all of you a question: Why is it that, once we consider an animal a pet (a creature whose sole purpose is enslavement by our species for, primarily, our own amusement), that we become uneasy at the thought of using that animal as a source of food?
I stumbled across this article on the New York Times this evening. Since we are currently discussing the morality of eating meat, I thought this was highly appropriate (and the timing couldn't be better).
The article, in brief, touches on the history of using rabbits as a source of food. While they are generally considered a food source of last resort (except among the French), there has apparently been a recent surge in interest in the animals as food, particularly among those who may not have the room to raise other livestock animals, such as those living in the suburbs.
It does touch on an interesting bit of history. As stated in the article: "Ever since the Victorians began keeping them as pets, the relationship between the rabbit and the table has been uneasy."
It is interesting to consider the view of animals as pets that makes viewing them as food uneasy. To throw in another example (unrelated to the above article), in some Asian cultures (China most famously), dogs are cooked and eaten, a practice that many (primarily Westerners) view as cruel and inhumane.
So I pose to all of you a question: Why is it that, once we consider an animal a pet (a creature whose sole purpose is enslavement by our species for, primarily, our own amusement), that we become uneasy at the thought of using that animal as a source of food?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)