Re: afternoon tea

[Paul Hubbard <curley_boy_99@yahoo.co.uk>]

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


I would like to begin by commenting on what Alice said
at the end of the 2nd chapter of her play: "i dont
mean to be rude, you know, hope you haven't taken any
offence, i just think you've made some big assumptions
that kinda undermine ur case."  I don't take offence
at all.  On the contrary, I am impressed by your
ability to condense such a serious topic into a format
which is both accessible and entertaining - and yet
doesn't trivialise the subject under discussion.  The
only grounds I would have for offence would be that
the 'play' or 'dialogue' format permits the author to
put words in the mouths of her characters that their
real-life counter-parts would not use.  Nevertheless,
I am not offended, as I think that this particular
format (for those that have the skill) can make it
easier to see how the argument develops - as opposed
to trying to wade through one of my 'theses'!

Let's start from the top then, and work our way down
(but not necessarily in chronological order):

"Paul: First, why do u call humans animals? I think
that's a mistake.

Alice: Err, what? no seriously, that's just a silly
point..."

My refusal to classify humans as animals IS a serious
point.  Of course, you don't have to agree with me
(and it's clear that you do not), but saying that
humans are not animals has knock-on effects when
trying to develop theories for ethical interaction
with them.  The reason utilitarian ethics makes
maximisation of pleasure for the greatest number (or,
in your case, the minimisation of suffering) the
keystone of the system is because of a prior
assumption that humans are animals - in that both
species share a basic motivation to avoid pain and
seek pleasure.  (And, therefore, any system of ethics
must cater to these two fundamental motivations.)  Now
I am certainly not going to deny the science behind
these presumptions: humans are indeed 'animals' (in
the sense that they share a similar genetic make-up,
can be classified as vertebrates and mammals etc, and
are involved in the process of evolution - just like
everything else in the natural world).

But the question of what makes us 'human' cannot be
whittled down to simple references to biological
evolution or base motivations.  Thus, when I say that
human beings are "more than our animal inheritance
PLUS the capacity for reason", difficult questions
arise when trying to work out how to deal with
creatures who share similarities with us (at the
biological level), but have little in common with us
in how we go about our daily lives (and the ethical
decisions that face us within them).

In my previous reply, I made reference to Alice's
comments on the 'species divide' in ethics.  What
utilitarianism offers us, as a possible resolution to
difficulty of legislating conduct between humans and
animals, is that (whatever our differences) we still
feel and react to pain.  Therefore, whatever theories
of ethics we develop for dealing with human beings,
animals can still be considered creatures worthy of
our moral consideration, since they are affected by
our actions in the world.  If 'pain' is a phenomenon
that both human and animals experience, then, when
asking about animals and ethics, the reduction of
their pain and suffering (that is caused by our
actions towards them) looks promising as a
starting-point for the development of any ethical
system that seeks to legislate for the world in a
holistic manner.

Next, Alice goes on to examine my arguments against
wholesale veganism (arguments based on the negative
impact that veganism would have on certain traditional
livelihoods):  

"do u think we should allow sex trafficking because
there's such a big industry and the pimps enjoy their
livelihoods? Or do u reckon William Wilberforce would
have changed his mind about being anti-slavery when he
realised that Britain's imperial strength was built on
such exploitation?"

To start with, "slavery", "sex trafficking" and the
like are indeed traditional livelihoods, but tradition
itself is not a 'trump card' that can be used to
overcome any criticism of the practices that occur
within it.  The reason I originally emphasised
tradition so much was that tradition is what enables
us to orientate ourselves in the world.  It is
traditions, and the histories that go with them, that
bind society together (and are one way in which
knowledge and experience is passed from generation to
generation).  We can probably think of many traditions
that contain practices that we feel are morally
unjustifiable, or that are based on ignorant and
baseless presuppositions.  In that case it is the job
of moral philosophers, indeed anyone with a
conscience, to stand up and confront such wrongs: if
something is wrong, then it is wrong regardless of
whether it is considered 'traditional' or not.  But
what tradition brings home to us, is the fact that our
actions have consequences that affect others in ways
that we cannot always foresee.

Going back to the examples of sex trafficking and
slavery: we recognise that both of these are wrong,
but at the same time, peoples' livelihoods depend upon
the continuation of such practices (the prostitutes
and slaves - not to mention the pimps and
slave-drivers).  Now if prostitution and slavery are
wrong, the question is not: "Do we confront this wrong
or not?", but "How can we confront this wrong in such
a way that those concerned can re-orientate themselves
once they are freed from it?"  It's no good freeing
the slaves (if they have nowhere to go), or the
prostitutes (if, without alternative means of
employment, they will be straight back out on the
street).  In the case of the farmers who keep
live-stock, it's all very well talking about
"transferable skills", but if you and your family have
lived and worked on that farm and its land for
generations, how can you just pack up and go at the
wave of a wand?  There is a history there, ties to the
land, and a love for that way of life (and yes, I have
friends that work on live-stock farms).  If there are
practices that occur on these farms that we find
objectionable then we need to find ways to bring about
change that allow people time to adjust.

"Alice: even if i buy ur theory that the birds will
live wonderful lives... (which i dont). ur assuming
death isnt a harm. well, surely if the birds have
pleasurable states, what right have we got to curtail
them?"

If we could improve the conditions under which the
turkeys (or cattle) were kept and killed on farms (as
I tried to argue in my previous post), then we are
taking a step in the direction of a reduction in
unnecessary suffering.  I never said, nor implied,
that the animals on these 'improved' farms would have
"wonderful lives", but that they would have lives that
were immeasurably better than those they have now. 
Thus, the 'right' we have to kill them for food comes
as a consequence of our providing them with a better
life than they would have had in the wild.  

Now the reason why death is not considered 'harmful'
to livestock (if the executions are carried out
properly) is that the animals have no anticipation of
the end (or feelings of regret about the life they are
leaving behind, nor fear about what awaits them
'beyond').  Human beings (and yes most "retarded" ones
too) have at least some fear in anticipation of death,
and of what and who they are leaving behind.  Death
itself is not harmful to animals (or, strictly
speaking, human beings) it is the quality of their
lives that is important.

Additionally, what right have we to curtail farming
families' traditional ways of life because we believe
that the live-stock would benefit from this (not
necessarily true at all)?  Whose suffering do we weigh
against whose?  Where would all the 'freed' live-stock
be sent to (where they would receive adequate, food,
shelter and protection from predators)?  If we had to
deport the animals, what impact would the necessary
transport methods and costs have on the economy and on
the environment?  (The countryside and rural life in
many parts of the UK would be transformed.)  It would
be nice to think that we could all go around making
'pure' moral judgements in the world, that considered
nothing more than the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of
the act or practice under scrutiny.  However, we often
have to take into account realistic steps required to
end the wrong that we perceive (and the reality of a
world in which all acts or practices of that
particular kind were ended).

"Alice: ur argument seems to be approving of lethal
injection to eat the mentally retarded... bit iffy. ur
still assuming the birds exist for us."

Not at all, because the "mentally retarded" are people
too.  And, therefore, they should be considered within
a system of ethics that treats them as entities with
needs and desires of far greater complexity than
animals have.  In an ideal world, any system of ethics
would view all people as HUMAN BEINGS (ends in
themselves), instead of means to ends for the
reduction of overall suffering.  Ethics is concerned
with maintaining the quality of life of individuals. 
But individuals exist within an elaborate social
structure (as we share our lives with others in the
world and with animals too).  Therefore, what 'quality
of life' means is different for each person, but the
distinction between the 'quality of life' for animals,
and that of humans, is of an order so vast that we
must deal with animals differently (when asking
ethical questions about them) than we do with other
human beings.  

As for me assuming that "the birds exist for us", I
don't.  The birds exist in the world - the world we
inhabit, have shaped, and laid down values and laws
in.  We have no 'right' to take them for our uses. 
But, strictly speaking, we have no 'natural right' to
anything.  We use the birds because, once upon a time,
we required meat for our physical survival.  Today it
is only certain industries that require these birds
for their economic survival (as the eating of turkey
has passed beyond necessity for survival into
tradition).

"Alice: [...] given the needs of the industry. surely,
for it to remain commercially viable, each bird has to
be killed in some commercial fashsion, or else meat
prices would rocket."

I don't think that killing animals for food is
automatically wrong (although in terms of strict
dietary requirements it is unnecessary).  What allows
me to justify the continuation of this practice is
that - if conditions were improved - farmers would be
giving the turkeys/cattle better lives than they would
be leading in the wild (at the mercy of predators or
starvation, if environmental conditions deteriorated).
 Additionally, as I said before, it is up to consumers
to examine their purchases and diets: how do these
affect both their lives (in terms of health), the
lives of producers (in terms of livelihood) and the
animals involved (in terms of suffering)?  If
consumers reflected on such issues and reduced their
demand for such vast quantities of produce, farmers
wouldn't need to maximise 'output' and many of the
cruel 'factory farming' practices could be abandoned.

"Alice: [...] analagously, cows as evolved mammals do
form relations, indeed even sheep can identify their
young in a field. so why split up families for our
benefit?"

Human beings often engage in cruel practices for what
are, in reality, short-term benefits or those of
questionable value.  (And we don't even have to go
beyond the boundaries of our own species for examples.
 The 'daily grind' for many poorly paid workers in the
manufacturing and services industries separate them
from their families - for what? Meagre wages, no real
chance of promotion and day after day of the same dull
routines.)

"Alice: [...] if we made sure that the eastern
european women only had to be raped 12 times a day
instead of the usual 45 and that the African slaves
only had to do menial tasks then that's ok by you?
Still slavery isnt it?"

I accept that a reduction of suffering is still
suffering, and therefore wrong.  But change requires
time.  If we try and make large-scale alterations to
the meat and farming industries at the flick of a
switch, we risk causing one hell of a lot more
suffering than occurs at the present time.  (The
impact of all the laid off workers on the economy for
a start.)  The mental suffering of all those
unemployed in dire financial straights (with a family
of dependants) outweighs - in my mind, at least - the
physical suffering of the animals that would live
under improved farming methods.

"Alice: u havent dealt with the ecologists argument
about land waste. that we need to cut down land to
grow food for them, waste of energy, etc etc."

Again, as I said in my previous post, by our very
existence on the planet, human beings consume
resources and destroy the habitats of other animals. 
(This would happen even if we lived in mud huts and
ate leaves and berries.)  If consumer demand was
lessened for meat and dairy products, then there would
be less need for large herds of cattle and large
grazing areas to accommodate them.  The idea of
'Mother Nature', as something that is a wonderfully
balanced whole in which we live, is a romantic myth. 
There is no 'give' and 'take' - merely the restriction
of the damage we cause to the environment in our
attempts to survive in it.

"Alice: so do i take it ur a vegan? (given the current
state of animal treatment in this country)"

I am not a vegan.   The only truthful answer I can
give as to why is because I like meat (even though I
know there's a high probability that a lot of it has
been produced via methods and means I disagree with). 
Do you buy all your food based on 'Free Trade' labels,
all your clothes from Oxfam and never use a car?  Each
of us, every day, do things that we know are harmful
or wrong in some way.  We know that we ought not to do
such things (and even say, as in my own case, WHAT
exactly it is we ought to be doing to counter such
wrongs) but we still carry on in our old ways
nevertheless...

Right, that's all for now.  Thanks for the tea Alice,
and I look forward to hearing from you soon (although,
as I have a dissertation deadline in January, I might
not have as much time to commit to these forums as I
would like).


		
___________________________________________________________ 
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com


Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml