Wednesday, August 23, 2006

I Eat With Gusto, Damn! You Bet!

Here's a little story for my avid readership.

I first started getting into philosophy back in year 12, and through first year Uni became increasingly sure that philosophy was what I wanted to spend at least the next few years doing. I was already, at this stage, pretty sure that I would quite happily label myself a Utilitarian, and was finding out that moral philosophy was probably where my interests particularly lay.

But then... In late 2004, around when I started reading about Peter Singer, and particularly after I actually read his book Practical Ethics over the summer break, I started to realise that, if I really believed in the truth of Utilitarianism as a moral theory, and actually committed myself to being a moral person, there was, frankly, no reasonable way to escape the fact that the vast, vast majority of meat-eating that I do is horribly, horribly immoral.

I won't argue that here, suffice to say it comes pretty easily from
a) Pleasure is good, pain is bad.
b) Animals feel pleasure and pain.
c) Practices such as factory farming are terribly painful for animals.

At the time I decided, due to a lack of willpower or commitment or something, that I'd delay forming any firm opinion on the matter until after I'd actually taken a Practical Ethics course. After all, maybe there were some decent arguments against it, maybe I'd find myself less convinced by Utilitarian sentiments, whatever. But then, halfway through second year I decided not to take that course quite yet.

Anyway, now I'm finally taking it, and, as I suspected, it has, so far, if anything, strengthened my convictions against meat-eating. Actually, that might not be strictly true; I'd say, in comparison to how I felt last year, I've probably become more accepting of the idea that consumption of free-range products may be morally permissible. But the point is, I'm more convinced than ever that there's no getting out of the conclusion that the meat eating practices I currently live by are horribly, monstrously immoral.

So... Now what? It seems to me that, unless either:
a) Something convinces me that my moral conclusions are wrong,
b) I can find some rational justification for giving up on morality
c) I choose to give up on philosophy, and a commitment to the truth, altogether, or
d) I'm willing to just pigheadedly think of myself as a terribly weak-willed person, as if that someone justifies a lack of effort
then I'm going to really have to try to alter my behaviour...

Of course, at the least I think that would only really necessitate avoiding factory-farmed products, making an effort instead to find free-range, ethically produced stuff. (I have seen Free-Range ham around, but, except perhaps when it comes to eggs, the market for this kind of stuff really doesn't seem to be as big here as it apparently is in Europe.) So maybe that'll be relatively easy. Well, I'll try to give it a try, anyway.

Of course, I suspect some people might disagree with my conclusions, so feel free to loudly argue in my direction (or tell me that I'm wrong, and a grotesquely ugly freak) any time!

3 Comments:

At 8/23/2006 1:26 pm, Blogger International Woman of Mystery said...

*sighs*

you know, i deal with the same struggle within myself. ALL THE TIME. in fact, my joining of UNSW's Food Co-Operative couple months back was really a product of a frenzy of anxiety about my food habits. i have the following ways of complicating my conviction that meat-eating is wrong:

1) is to step back from just the animal eating and lump it all in with food-ethics, and say something like, "erm, i'll be 90% moral because that's less frustrating than being 100% moral about it, and i'll use my spare 10% on meat" - in a less crude way, the idea is that "ethical eating" is made up of so so so many factors that you needn't privelege meat over say, the unsustainability of certain luxury crops.

2) you could pretend you don't empathise with animals. or you could complicate the empathy by saying something like, "children pretend that dolls have feelings..." - but somehow i don't think you or anyone else would be convinced. (although by the same token, i am totally unsatisfied with "empathy" arguments as far as i've come across them - another story)

3) you could take the kind of position whereby you don't think that being totally moral is something to aspire to. (i actually think there is a lot of to be said for this position, but most people intuitively say something like, "yeah i don't want to be totally 100% coherent and systematic about my morality, but i want to make an ethical choice about THIS issue."

in any case, philosophy and gender studies to this to me every semester - they induce this kind of crisis whereby i get all anxious about my behaviour and habits and change them. i really want to eat meat at the moment because i'm so freaking anaemic, but i do also try buy all my food from the co-op and help there - mainly becase of objections to broader issues in food manufacturing. anyway, that's another blog entry!

let me know what you think! cya! ania

 
At 8/27/2006 5:35 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just wound up on your page from last.fm

I am a philosophy graduate so I have an opinion on this; something to think about.

Of course, I'll assume you're right that animals feel pain.

An animal cannot not be feeling pain when you eat it. An animal is only going to be feeling pain during its actual life. A regular farm which feeds its animals well and gives them enough space to move around in would probably spare the animal from quite a lot of pain that the animal would experience in the wild. Afterall, nature is based around a system where animals eat each other. Also, an animal is going to die one way or another. At that point it's either going to be food for you or food for decomposers. I don't see the moral problem with eating meat in and of itself.

Therefore, what I hope you end up really fighting against is the mistreatment of animals during their lives, mostly in the forms of poor living conditions and such. The saddest part about this is the extreme overpopulation of humanity that makes it so difficult for farmers to meet the demand for meat and therefore exacerbates the situation. But if people care enough this is remedied to some extent, and a farm animal can live a more decent life in many cases...

 
At 8/28/2006 10:04 am, Blogger Wojit said...

Ania!: Nice comments! And they lead me to say:

That makes a bit of sense, but my problem with it would just be that the animal suffering issue, considering the widespread nature of the problem, and the amount of animals I would normally eat in a year, seems, to me, to be a significantly more weighty one than most other moral issues, with the possible exception of general suffering in the third world.

I mean, I'd like to think I'm a nice person, and moral in a personal sense of making people around me more happy and not being directly nasty, but in a sense that kind of morality completely fails to weigh up against the suffering I would indirectly cause by consuming products of immoral industries, using more than a reasonable amount of resources, not giving more to charity, etc.

And as for not aspiring to be totally moral; sure, as someone whose name eludes me wrote in some interesting article called "Moral Saints," I would personally not really want to be perfectly 100% moral, and someone who was might be quite annoying to know, but I still think it's worth my effort to try significantly harder than I do, especially when relatively little effort can bring fairly significant benefits (which they obviously would be from the multiple perspective of the animals in question).

And as for thoughtful Anonymous person: Yes! I totally agree! My only real worry with eating meat per se is the whole Buying Into And Therefore, In At Least Some Small Way, Encouraging And Increasing The Problem thing. Though as I vaguely mentioned before, that can, perhaps, be neatly avoided through conscious ethical purchasing.

Unfortunately, I really don't see myself as being cut-out for a more activist role, and am a bit skeptical of the effectiveness of such action, though I haven't really thought about it much.

Also, I do quite like the idea that animals might suffer less in the artificially safe (but also relatively pain free) environment of a traditional farm than they would in the wild.

Thanks for the comment!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home