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