A Debate about Ethical Eating
In a few paragraphs’ time, I shall post some extracts from
the debate that took place in the comments section below this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaMbU8vVLOI)
of a discussion on “the philosophy of ethical eating” between the excellent Massimo
Pigliucci (an evolutionary biologist turned philosopher of science and professional
Stoic) and Daniel Kaufman (a philosophy professor at Missouri State University).
Overall, I found the video quite stimulating, like most of their previous
discussions, and I would recommend watching it.[1]
There are two reasons why I am
posting the extracts:
1.)
I think they capture the crux of the debate
around ethical eating.
2.)
As you will see, last night I did something
rather outrageous in the major thread below the video, accusing one of the
participants in the video (Dan Kaufman) of having views akin to a 19th
Century patriarch. As you will also see, I then got a reply from Kaufman
himself, only hours later. *GASP*
Since this skirmish is already in
the public domain, I hope my interlocutors won’t mind having their words reproduced
here, along with their Youtube thumbnails and usernames.
However, as the son of two
lawyers, I will say that if either of my interlocutors happen to stumble upon this
blog and do not approve of this reproduction, I will immediately take this post
down.
So, anyway, here are the
extracts:
My First Comment:
Wish you talked more about ecology,
environmental degradation, population ethics and the planet. Early in the
video, Massimo Pigliucci made a brief comment about the environmental component
of vegetarianism and veganism, but the line of thought was not pursued. It
seems to me that, on a planet already polluted, plundered, scarred, defoliated
and ravaged by human activity, whose climate is being thrust into ever greater
flux by the terrifying juggernaut of accelerating climate change (in this
possibly late stage of the Anthropocene), any act or way of living that would
significantly reduce one's carbon and environmental footprint has truly supreme ethical value. Indeed, I would go so far as to say
that significantly reducing one's environmental impact has a level of ethical
value unrivalled by basically any other kind of virtuous behaviour. If the
future of civilisation and the human race are at stake -- and they undoubtedly
are to some degree, because the population can't keep growing indefinitely
(under our current global economic system) and there are /already/ millions
starving (as Peter Singer would point out) -- then one's environmental impact
means everything. (Incidentally, this is the same logic that supposedly
motivates that cyborg Nick Bostrom, who genuinely thinks his warnings about AI
might be the salvation of humanity.)
I put it to you that even according to a loose virtue ethics framework, the goal of reducing one's carbon and environmental footprint should be a basic requirement -- i.e. a basic mark of good character. In fact, significantly reducing one's carbon and environmental footprint should be regarded as a kind of virtuous behaviour roughly equivalent to, say, volunteering in the community, or mentoring a promising student out of uni-hours.
If you accept this logic, the only questions remaining are the following: 1.) Does switching from a standard Western omnivorous diet to a vegetarian or vegan diet actually end up significantly reducing one's carbon and general environmental footprint? 2.) How does this aggregate over multiple agents?
I am no expert on these questions -- but that's exactly why I was hoping for a serious discussion.
I put it to you that even according to a loose virtue ethics framework, the goal of reducing one's carbon and environmental footprint should be a basic requirement -- i.e. a basic mark of good character. In fact, significantly reducing one's carbon and environmental footprint should be regarded as a kind of virtuous behaviour roughly equivalent to, say, volunteering in the community, or mentoring a promising student out of uni-hours.
If you accept this logic, the only questions remaining are the following: 1.) Does switching from a standard Western omnivorous diet to a vegetarian or vegan diet actually end up significantly reducing one's carbon and general environmental footprint? 2.) How does this aggregate over multiple agents?
I am no expert on these questions -- but that's exactly why I was hoping for a serious discussion.
Show less
Reply1
(And notice that I argued this from
within the virtue ethics framework, which makes it harder.)
Reply
I have since watched Cowspiracy, and
am now very confident that this speculation was spot-on. I think the ecological
arguments for switching to a vegan diet are overwhelming.
The Main Thread:
At about the 10:00 frame,
Massimo's interlocutor begins to castigate vegans. That mystified me. I have
been a vegan who very infrequently eats a vegetarian diet when I travel, and I
cannot fathom his insistence that there is no moral difference between choosing
not to kill and eat animals and choosing to be a carnivore.
That position is morally dubious to say the least. Just for the record, it is
easy to prepare and eat a vegan diet. It simply means that you make your meals
from whole foods and think about how to make them nutritious. After a brief
initiation phase, it honestly becomes simple second nature.
Also, Massimo's citing the mistaken idea that the cultivation of non-meat crops would mean that more land would have to be placed under cultivation (if the global diet were more predominantly vegan) is quite simply mistaken, and it is often simply propaganda propagated by the meat production industry.
As for the Massimo's presentation of Peter Singer's dilemma at about frame 26:00, WHY does he postulate leather shoes? It is easy to buy comfortable non-leather shoes. Why should we gauge our self-esteem by whether we are wearing designer labels on our feet feet?
Vegan choices are easy to make. They do not make one miserable, as Massimo contends at about frame 29:00. In fact, as an added bonus, vegan choices can make your life richer, more creative and more FUN! For example, I love creating a vegan dinner party. The carnivores almost always rave about how good the food is. That makes me happy. Like much of life, making vegan choices does not necessarily result in being humorless and puritanical.
Eudomonic happiness is completely harmonious with veganism and also with epicurean happiness btw ;)
Also, Massimo's citing the mistaken idea that the cultivation of non-meat crops would mean that more land would have to be placed under cultivation (if the global diet were more predominantly vegan) is quite simply mistaken, and it is often simply propaganda propagated by the meat production industry.
As for the Massimo's presentation of Peter Singer's dilemma at about frame 26:00, WHY does he postulate leather shoes? It is easy to buy comfortable non-leather shoes. Why should we gauge our self-esteem by whether we are wearing designer labels on our feet feet?
Vegan choices are easy to make. They do not make one miserable, as Massimo contends at about frame 29:00. In fact, as an added bonus, vegan choices can make your life richer, more creative and more FUN! For example, I love creating a vegan dinner party. The carnivores almost always rave about how good the food is. That makes me happy. Like much of life, making vegan choices does not necessarily result in being humorless and puritanical.
Eudomonic happiness is completely harmonious with veganism and also with epicurean happiness btw ;)
Show less
Reply4
+Aravis Tarkheena I
certainly do not feel I dishonest in my characterization of your comments.
"Castigating" seems appropriate when you characterize vegans in the
negative ways you did within the video. In response to your assertion that
"Vegan choices may not make you miserable, but they would make me
miserable," I would be curious to know how long you attempted to eat in a
vegan diet. In my experience vegan cuisine is healthful, easy to prepare, and economical,
and I would be curious to know why your experience is so negative.
Show less
Reply
You said at 10:00 I
"castigated" vegans. 'Castigate' means "reprimand someone
severely." I did no such thing. Neither at 10.00 or at any other point of
the discussion.
As for your question, I am a lover of great world cuisine. I would be miserable to never eat sushi again. Never eat shwarma again. Never eat lamb vindaloo again. Never eat schnitzel again. Never eat lobster again. Never eat great charcuterie. These are some of the great pleasures in life. I would no more give up eating meat than I would going to the Louvre or the Metropolitan Opera.
As for your question, I am a lover of great world cuisine. I would be miserable to never eat sushi again. Never eat shwarma again. Never eat lamb vindaloo again. Never eat schnitzel again. Never eat lobster again. Never eat great charcuterie. These are some of the great pleasures in life. I would no more give up eating meat than I would going to the Louvre or the Metropolitan Opera.
Show less
Reply
+Aravis Tarkheena I don't
have the time to watch the video again, so I'm not going to post the exact
frames, but anyone who watches the video will clearly see that you often
portray vegans in a negative light in the video. For starters, you say point
blank at about frame 8:00 that you
didn't admire vegans. If you don't like the word "castigate" feel
free to substitute the synonyms"censure," "criticize," or
"upbraid," all of which would serve the purpose equally well.
You did not chose to comment on whether or not you have seriously tried a vegan diet. And as for your food choices, I have no intention of moralizing or trying to tell you what your food choices should be. What I'm saying is that veganism is not an ascetic, labor intensive choice. After the initial learning curve, preparing a vegan diet can enhance the flourishing and the eudemonic effect on one's existence. However, if you feel you must eat shwarma, lamb vindaloo, and lobster in order to have personal contentment, then you will disagree with me. I am not a deontologist, so I'm not going to preach to you about your food choices. It would be futile for me to do so anyway.
You did not chose to comment on whether or not you have seriously tried a vegan diet. And as for your food choices, I have no intention of moralizing or trying to tell you what your food choices should be. What I'm saying is that veganism is not an ascetic, labor intensive choice. After the initial learning curve, preparing a vegan diet can enhance the flourishing and the eudemonic effect on one's existence. However, if you feel you must eat shwarma, lamb vindaloo, and lobster in order to have personal contentment, then you will disagree with me. I am not a deontologist, so I'm not going to preach to you about your food choices. It would be futile for me to do so anyway.
Show less
Reply
+2b Sirius I never once made any
hostile or otherwise harsh remarks about vegans, which is what
"castigate" and its "synonyms" mean. I simply explanied why
I do not believe that the sort of diet they embrace is obligatory. The
discussion was academic and cordial. Fortunately, anyone who wants to know what
I actually said -- as opposed to your mischaracterization -- can see it him or
herself.
Since I do not believe veganism is obligatory, I see no reason to take on the "learning curve" you describe. Just as I wouldn't see how long I can go without setting foot in the Metropolitan Museum of Art or the Avery Fisher Music Hall, I am not going to see how long I can get along without the cuisine I grew up with and love (like my grandmother's Paprikas Csirke recipe).
Since I do not believe veganism is obligatory, I see no reason to take on the "learning curve" you describe. Just as I wouldn't see how long I can go without setting foot in the Metropolitan Museum of Art or the Avery Fisher Music Hall, I am not going to see how long I can get along without the cuisine I grew up with and love (like my grandmother's Paprikas Csirke recipe).
Show less
Reply
+Aravis Tarkheena Sorry but your were
both hostile and dismissive of vegans and veganism. But I do agree that viewers
of the video can watch your characterizations and draw their own conclusions.
As for your defensiveness about being unwilling to explore veganism for
yourself, no one is twisting your arm and trying to make you do so. However, if
you think that eating veal and going to the MoMA are moral equivalents I would
love to see a forensic analysis of the ethics which allow you to make such
claims.
Show less
Reply1
+2b Sirius Worth nothing that
patriarchs were very attached to tradition of women as nurturing, feminine
domestic mannequins before the two major Women's Lib movements. Might they have
tried to defend this beautiful tradition within some loose Aristotelian virtue
ethics framework? Very possibly -- in fact, I think that's what some of them
did (Janet Radcliffe Richards has made this kind of point when talking about
the concept of "the natural" in relation to feminism).
You can be amoral about animal welfare and the future of the planet if you want, but I strongly suspect the kind of apologia voiced in this video will look very bad in a couple of decades -- like, seriously bad. Like, repugnant. Just as we do when we reflect on the progress of women, we may well wonder, "How were so many of us so selfish and cruel on this matter". And we will bow our heads in shame. As I do myself, knowing that my own commitments are weak.
As for Singer being a hypocrite, well, at least he's doing his best. At least he is preaching something that is worth preaching, even if he doesn't quite live up to his ideal. I admire him for that far more than I admire the non-hypocrisy of someone who defends indifference to animal welfare and the future of the planet on the basis of the aesthetic value of meat in their lives. (Again, wasn't there a certain aesthetic value in the traditional role for women, those dainty, elegant, bedizened women in their kidney-crushing corsets who pouted and fanned themselves and curtseyed for strong, handsome men with mutton chops? Didn't the moral value of equality and liberty and self-determination and a shared humanity outweigh this aesthetic value? Might it in this case too?)
You can be amoral about animal welfare and the future of the planet if you want, but I strongly suspect the kind of apologia voiced in this video will look very bad in a couple of decades -- like, seriously bad. Like, repugnant. Just as we do when we reflect on the progress of women, we may well wonder, "How were so many of us so selfish and cruel on this matter". And we will bow our heads in shame. As I do myself, knowing that my own commitments are weak.
As for Singer being a hypocrite, well, at least he's doing his best. At least he is preaching something that is worth preaching, even if he doesn't quite live up to his ideal. I admire him for that far more than I admire the non-hypocrisy of someone who defends indifference to animal welfare and the future of the planet on the basis of the aesthetic value of meat in their lives. (Again, wasn't there a certain aesthetic value in the traditional role for women, those dainty, elegant, bedizened women in their kidney-crushing corsets who pouted and fanned themselves and curtseyed for strong, handsome men with mutton chops? Didn't the moral value of equality and liberty and self-determination and a shared humanity outweigh this aesthetic value? Might it in this case too?)
Show less
Reply
You can be amoral about animal welfare
and the future of the planet if you want, but I strongly suspect the kind of
apologia voiced in this video will look very bad in a couple of decades --
like, seriously bad. Like, repugnant. ---------------------------------- Right.
All the great chefs of the world will come to be viewed as serial killers, and
the Michelin Star will be known as a badge of infamy. Charcuteries will be shut
down by righteous mobs, and the shwarma hawkers in the souk will be chased down
as the villains they are. I think, I'll be just fine. Thanks. And I'll put up
my good works against yours any day of the week. It's easy to be righteous on
the internet.
Show less
Reply
+Thomas Aitken I think it
is very possible that in the future the facile social justifications for eating
the flesh of dead animal will come to be seen in a very negative light. After
all in the past slavery and cannibalism were condoned as cultural norms, as was
the complete subjugation of women, as you pointed out in your comment.
Reply
I did sound awfully righteous, I will admit, but I also said that I
myself felt “shame”. As for his mocking point about chefs and butchers, I think he’s
not entirely missing the mark, but I really don’t think he should be so smug. The
stats quite strongly suggest that vegetarianism will continue to grow in
popularity over the next few decades (see the graphs in The Better Angels of our Nature) and it wouldn’t surprise me if
people who were still highly recalcitrant and defensive during this period (resorting, for example, to “aesthetic” arguments to defend their
carnivorous eating habits) will be seen as selfish and barbaric in a couple of
decades’ time. It wouldn’t surprise me at all, in fact. And I really don’t
think the analogy with feminism is that misguided either. Yes, it may seem absurd, but it also would have seemed absurd in the 19th Century to accuse a patriarch of acting in a morally repugnant way, or to tell a woman of that time that she was being oppressed from the womb to the grave.
If that sounds melodramatic (and it does), so be it.
If that sounds melodramatic (and it does), so be it.
[1] One
interesting thing about their discussion is that they both mount their cases
from the point of view of old-fashioned “virtue ethics”. This has the
consequence that they obviate entirely the usual, utilitarian arguments of
vegetarians, and talk little about animal welfare (no mention of Jeremy Bentham
or his famous epigram). My own feeling is that this is a weakness of their
discussion: I think that one sort of has to assume a more utilitarian framework
when wading into debates about vegetarianism and veganism (but that is not a
point I will argue).
No comments:
Post a Comment