Gregg, as you say:
According to UTOK’s ultimate justification, we might frame our moral-ethical lives as the extent to which we are able to be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity. This means we should be held accountable if we participate in suffering.
Your statement does ring true to me, especially within the clarity afforded by the ToK. That was my intuition, so I’m on the same page. Hunting seems the least morally complicated, given the degree and duration of interaction with another being’s life. I think unpacking why hunting might be an ideal could be useful when reflecting on the relationship we might point towards when it comes to our consumption of animals, and the raising of animals for their byproducts. I believe this is where the “integrity” you reference in the above quote has a place at the table, as opposed to our given food system framework, which in many ways intentionally obscures realities of food production, practically making integrity impossible. This raises the question, how can our culture interact with this concern in a way that affords integrity? (As a side note, and personal motivation behind my interest in this exploration, this is the base concern of my interest in creating a novel hyper-local food system.)
Reading the replies this morning, I started to wonder about “needs” in the realm of justificatory frames. It seems as though the requirement for human “need” is assumed in the subtext of these types of discussions, particularly from the view of animal rights advocates, with some consistency. So, in this example, “their” question might be: If we assume the suffering of the animals in the production of animal products, through what means must we justify their continued production if we cannot also claim the need for animal products in human health and flourishing?
I think this is a relevant question, in that, it points towards a huge proportion of human activity, which we may easily argue we do not “need” to do, and in some cases, we might even argue objectively harm us in measurable ways. Animal rights are particularly salient because, clearly, most of us recognize an animal’s potential for suffering as compared to a plant. There is a direct trade-off in the exchange of life, a zero-sum dynamic with another feeling being, which leaves many thinking individuals unsettled, at the least.
I wonder more broadly, what becomes of artistic endeavors at large (performance arts particularly require a huge amount of resources to produce), wine/beer/alcohol, or food generally “dressed up” for pleasure? To what extent do we indulge culture in the many ways it encourages the unnecessary?
In other words, I take issue with hanging justificatory claims on questions of “need”. I’m not so sure we really know, out of all of our cultural artifacts, which are needs and which are mere indulgent hedonism. It seems clear to me that “need” is conceptually problematic as means for determining what we do and don’t do, but I’m also unsure of how to proceed from there. Our cultures change over time to reflect our values (or lack thereof), so “we” can’t simply say “culture made me do it!” It seems as though there is a strong potential for a slippery slope through vague gestures towards “need” in the context of our environmental concerns, and so is quite relevant as a topic to unpack.
For me, what it comes down to is this: I wonder about our ability to integrate fully, as physical beings who are part of a bigger ecological system, and what that means. We “do damage” through human activity in so many ways, that directly killing animals for consumption almost seems an arbitrary place to begin and end the discussion. Due to our ability to change the environment itself, it seems like falling into right relationship as a part of the whole, situating ourselves properly as the ultimate complexification in a chain of being, might have something to do with where we need to direct our energy.
Lee, many years ago, I was a vegan and so although it has been a while since I encountered his work, I have some passing familiarity with Peter Singer.
Due to my familiarity with food production—I currently work as a beer brewer at a regional craft brewery—and the nitty-gritty behind the scenes, I hold a strong skepticism for lab-cultured meat. In my experience, new food technology falls short of purported novelty and advantage. What are the facilities required for such production? How large will they be, where will they be and how many will there be? What are the byproducts of this production? What are the all-inclusive inputs involved? In total, my worry with lab-cultured meat is that, as a novel technological solution to a moral quandary, it might conceal much of the downsides (due to the heavy weight of financial investment and moral pressure backing it) behind the veil of hope that it presents. It would be really cool if these issues have already been addressed, so I’ll definitely check out the specific links you provided. I hope my skepticism will be quashed!
With Gratitude,
Aydan
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Gregg, All:
See also the animal rights, ethics literature by Peter Singer, I think of Princeton.
Best,
Michael M. Kazanjian
############################On Monday, April 4, 2022, 08:29:42 AM CDT, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Thanks, Lee. Helpful and hopeful.
Best,
Gregg
From: theory of knowledge society discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of lee simplyquality.org
Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 7:17 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Animal rights within UTOK via ToK
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
There are good arguments for reducing harm to sentient beings, including animals.
However, humans have eaten meat for most of recorded history.
I see a solution emerging in the form of cultured meats.
This will become practical in the near future.
I follow the work of Upside foods.
This will allow us to continue meat consumption without harm to animals.
(Escape false dilemmas.)
This is not the the full solution to animal welfare, and it skirts the ethical question you pose, but it is a wise path forward.
I understand that Peter Singer has important ideas on this topic.
Thanks,
Lee Beaumont
On Apr 4, 2022, at 7:06 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hi Aydan,
This is a great question and one that I have grappled with some. Let me share my analysis. First, as you suggest and this blog elaborates, the UTOK/ToK frame does afford justification for seeing human persons as exceptional and warranting special treatment relative to animals.
Second, in terms of my own analysis of meta-moral values to serve as guides in our ethical decision making, well-being is a central concept, as is dignity. I argued that we can confer to human persons a “fundamental dignity” that grants and legitimizes rights that afford leverage to foster just societies.
Third, turning directly to animals, we have the concept of well-being. The Nested Model affords a descriptive metaphysical system for understanding the elements of human well-being, and it has relevance for sentient animals as well.
I acknowledge that this is not saying much about your question. I would love to really dive into this issue of animals. My primary point of referent in my own evolution based on UTOK focuses on animal well-being and suffering. Specifically, sentient animals can suffer or flourish. According to UTOK’s ultimate justification, we might frame our moral-ethical lives as the extent to which we are able to be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity. This means we should be held accountable if we participate in suffering.
I believe I participate in animal suffering by eating meat, especially if it is produced via industrial scale processes that do not attend to the animal’s well-being. After reading Harari’s Homo Deus and his exploration of the treatment of pigs, I (almost completely) stopped eating pork and beef as the suffering of pigs he narrated turned my stomach. However, I still eat fish and chicken/turkey. Especially re fish, I do not believe they can suffer anywhere near the same way a pig can suffer.
My goal would be to eat only animals who lived in systems that afforded reasonable care to their experience and were not structured in a way that caused systematic suffering.
Best,
Gregg
From: theory of knowledge society discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Aydan Connor
Sent: Saturday, April 2, 2022 10:44 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Animal rights within UTOK via ToK
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello!
What types of arguments might emerge from this system for and/or against the idea of “animal rights”? Is there clear justification to kill animals for our consumption? What are our obligations to animals raised directly for our consumption or for their byproducts? I want to make clear that this question is intended to be taken separately (as much as possible) from concerns of ecology overall.
Is there a universal claim possible regarding ethics in our interactions with animals? Alternatively, is there a framework to determine, for a given individual within a given cultural economic ecological frame, what is justifiable in the treatment of animals?
I am very curious about possible answers given how much clarity is provided by the complexification from matter to life to mind to culture. The line between animal and human may be revealed as relatively clear within ToK, but I wonder how that informs our relationship and obligations towards animals, directly or indirectly through extrapolation in UTOK.
Continuously Curious,
Aydan
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link:http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link:http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1