September 08, 2010
I was wrong about veganism. Let them eat meat – but farm it properly
George Monbiot in The Guardian:
This will not be an easy column to write. I am about to put down 1,200 words in support of a book that starts by attacking me and often returns to this sport. But it has persuaded me that I was wrong. More to the point, it has opened my eyes to some fascinating complexities in what seemed to be a black and white case.
In the Guardian in 2002 I discussed the sharp rise in the number of the world's livestock, and the connection between their consumption of grain and human malnutrition. After reviewing the figures, I concluded that veganism "is the only ethical response to what is arguably the world's most urgent social justice issue". I still believe that the diversion of ever wider tracts of arable land from feeding people to feeding livestock is iniquitous and grotesque. So does the book I'm about to discuss. I no longer believe that the only ethical response is to stop eating meat.
In Meat: A Benign Extravagance, Simon Fairlie pays handsome tribute to vegans for opening up the debate. He then subjects their case to the first treatment I've read that is both objective and forensic. His book is an abattoir for misleading claims and dodgy figures, on both sides of the argument.
There's no doubt that the livestock system has gone horribly wrong.
More here. [Thanks to Pablo Policzer.]
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 01:55 PM | Permalink
Comments
Try all of the same arguments, while replacing livestock with people: i.e., it's ok to kill people as long as we enable them to thrive until the moment of their slaughter, etc. If you do not find this version of the arguments compelling, then you ought to be required to clearly spell out the difference between the one case and the other. But this is something that no one who defends 'fair' organic meat farming against factory farming ever bothers to do. Yes, abusing living beings is bad, but assertion of dominion over their life and death is the real issue for many (until recently, most) ethical and religious vegetarians. (I'm not necessarily saying assertion of dominion is wrong, but I want to hear *arguments* as to why species is the exclusively relevant factor in determining whether it's wrong or not.)
Posted by: Justin E. H. Smith | Sep 8, 2010 2:58:23 PM
Species difference between us and them is the dominant explanation simply because there aren't other equally meaningful characteristics of animals that we could use to justify eating them.
The book sounds real interesting, but I wonder if the solution this guy has offered is sensible from a corporate perspective...
Posted by: chris | Sep 8, 2010 3:26:23 PM
Justin, I think you want the the classroom down the hall, Ethics of Meat-Eating 211. This is Agricultural Ethics and Sustainability 101.
Monbiot's ethical problem, on which this book changed his mind, was the issue of diverting ever larger tracts of arable land to feeding livestock rather than people - not the issue of "dominion".
Posted by: Vicki Baker | Sep 8, 2010 3:40:00 PM
Chris: That's a tautology.
Vicki: Maybe so, but I'm constantly disappointed that no one is interested in moving ahead to more advanced topics with me.
Posted by: Justin E. H. Smith | Sep 8, 2010 5:04:30 PM
OK, Justin - I'm game. Maybe the question is not "Why is OK to eat animals?" but rather "Why is it not OK to eat other humans?" Animals eat other animals all the time - there's nothing special about it. It's not something that puts us above the rest of nature in the position of dominion.
Raising and killing livestock is an easier way to get meat, true, but isn't really just a twist on the old trick of symbiosis? After all, ants farm aphids, and there may be other examples I 'm not aware of.
The really interesting question for me is why and when human primates started to care about whether their food suffers.
Posted by: Vicki Baker | Sep 8, 2010 6:33:30 PM
Justin E. H. Smith,
Its not a tautology. We use species as a reason simply because there is nothing more basic -more powerful- than connections between animals of the same species, and a rejection of those that aren't. The only few exceptions, at least for here in the US, is that some species are entertaining or meaningful to us, like dogs or gerbils -they are able to serve a purpose other than food.
What other factor would possibly be relevant as to why we eat meat?
Posted by: chris | Sep 8, 2010 6:52:01 PM
Justin,
I've made my peace with being at the top of the food chain. We have eaten meat for a long time. Some argue that eating meat is what allowed our brains to develop -- it's a more efficient way to get proteins. I like Michael Pollan's discussion of this in "The Omnivore's Dilemma". He addresses Peter Singer's as the best argument in favor of not eating meat: to minimize animal suffering. Pollan's reply is that entire classes of animals (pork, cattle, etc.) would not exist were it not to serve as our food. This doesn't mean a license to cruelty. (Pollan goes on at length about this. Happy animals are healthier ... and tastier.) But it does mean accepting our status at the top of a complex food chain.
The environmentalist critique that cattle take up too many resources was also always a powerful one. I am glad to see it being questioned at least.
Posted by: Pablo Policzer | Sep 8, 2010 7:20:25 PM
Justin, there probably is not a great difference in the moral choice of eating humans and eating other animals. But there is a difference in the expediency. I suspect that the taboo is based not so much on morality as the fear of being "eaten" by our fellow humans. On the other hand, our distaste for mistreating animals whom we will eventually eat, IS based on morality, however hypocritical that may sound. Minimizing the suffering of a sentient being is a mark of our humanity, I would like to believe. I guess the argument is similar to the one we make for a just war (think the Mahabharat) where we sanction the killing of the enemy in a fair fight but frown upon torturing the captured soldier. Whether we should eat meat at all or go to war ever, is a different debate.
Posted by: Ruchira | Sep 8, 2010 9:21:45 PM
Vicki, I think it was risky opening your proposal with "I'm game."
Posted by: Bryon | Sep 8, 2010 9:37:44 PM
It is rather interesting watching the views of people alienated from how the world actually works.
Grain productions is ethnic biotic cleansing of ecosystems, and is a destroyers of fossil water and soil.
Grass fed beef actually sequesters carbon and maintains ecosystems in the right environment (riparian environments are degraded from cattle, mainly in the arid West).
We are omnivores, and have evolved on animal protein, and it probably was the condition that produced our large brains.
George is right, it is a cruel and ecologically destructive Industrial AG system that is the culprit.
No one said late stage capitalism would be fun.
Haber, along with Borlague, is also to blame:
Important Personl
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Sep 8, 2010 10:06:10 PM
I was one letter off:
Important Person
Disclaimer: I have fed thousands of people years at a time
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Sep 8, 2010 10:13:38 PM
We have also killed other human beings for a long time, and have often proceeded to eat them. It would not be surprising to learn that intraspecies violence, like cross-species carnivorism, has also had some adaptive advantage and has contributed to the emergence of traits that we associate with humanness. So it is no decisive argument that meat eating is 'natural' or long-standing, because other things are at least as natural and long-standing that today most of us agree we ought to try to eliminate.
I myself don't necessarily want to insist on abolishing meat-eating, but I will not stop trying to convince everyone I am able to reach of the utter arbitrariness of the current boundaries of the community of beings we deem worthy of our moral concern: the community, namely, of *all* and *only* human beings. This is unprecedented in human history, and I have still never heard any compelling arguments in defense of it.
Posted by: Justin Smith | Sep 8, 2010 10:20:26 PM
of beings we deem worthy of our moral concern: the community, namely, of *all* and *only* human beings. This is unprecedented in human history, and I have still never heard any compelling arguments in defense of it.
Another long chapter in the history of the human ego, and anthropocentric delusion, ignoring a logarithm that couldn't care less (as that is the point).
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Sep 8, 2010 10:45:51 PM
Here is a good video on meat: http://meat.org
Posted by: larry | Sep 9, 2010 12:02:48 AM
Eating animals is cruel and unnecessary.
I have been a vegetarian for several decades. It's really not hard.
And I'll wager my brain is just as big as yours.
Posted by: Cynthia Haven | Sep 9, 2010 12:42:21 AM
How can anyone write so many words without ever geting the point? Veganism is an ethical choice to reduce the wrongdoing inherent in trumping the interests of some sentient beings with the simple brute force and caprice of others. If it helps the environment, good. But giving up animal exploitation is like giving up pederasty - a moral choice to eschew a bad action, no more, no less.
Posted by: cavall de quer | Sep 9, 2010 4:26:14 AM
Following Haidt I'm leaning more towards cultural tradition as a source of ethics, which in a wide range of cases tends to prefer eating other animals to eating humans.
Of course, it's not the only source. Utilitarian arguments might weigh in, balancing pleasure and nutrition against the future life experience of some animal. Is it wrong to eat insects, for instance? And then what of progressively larger animals?
Best I can do for the moment.
Posted by: Sagredo | Sep 9, 2010 4:50:13 AM
"This will not be an easy column to write. I am about to put down 1,200 words in support of a book that starts by attacking me and often returns to this sport. But it has persuaded me that I was wrong."
I just became a fan.
Posted by: prasad | Sep 9, 2010 8:28:26 AM
Justin:
Yes, humans have killed humans for a long time. But they have also developed moral and ethical codes for doing this, e.g. just war principles, humanitarian law (what used to be called the "laws of war"), etc. No doubt these are contested, especially by those who believe that any killing is wrong, full stop. But they exist because "most of us" have *not* tried to eliminate them. The Geneva Conventions -- the basis of International Humanitarian Law -- are premised on the idea that war happens, but that it can be conducted according to humanitarian principles, such as the just treatment of prisoners.
In much the same way, ethical arguments about the treatment of animals are premised on the idea that we occupy a place at the top of the food chain, but that animals can be treated "humanely". The difference with the IHL analogy is Pollan's point, which I referred to, that entire classes of animals would not exist if they didn't serve as our food.
It is possible to have an ethical position grounded in the idea of no killing, anything, ever. That view is at least internally consistent. But it is also possible to develop a coherent position based on the idea that some killing, under some circumstances, can happen. That second view has the virtue of being more externally consistent: with what humans have historically done, and continue to do.
Posted by: Pablo Policzer | Sep 9, 2010 9:34:42 AM
Bryon-whoops! Good one.
Eating animals is only unnecessary under certain economic arrangements. Pastoralists who make a living on non-arable land find it hard to be purely vegetarian- which is why Tibetan Buddhists, including the Dalai Lama, find so many loopholes for meat-eating.
I agree with Ruchira that "ur distaste for mistreating animals whom we will eventually eat, IS based on morality, however hypocritical that may sound."
Justin:
I will not stop trying to convince everyone I am able to reach of the utter arbitrariness of the current boundaries of the community of beings we deem worthy of our moral concern: the community, namely, of *all* and *only* human beings.
I agree with you somewhat about arbitrariness, disagree about how the boundary is formed. I think we still operate pretty much at the level of kinship, predation, and ritual sacrifice. I'm not getting all ev psych here, because I think we are tremendously adept at making these categories fictive. We make some animals our fictive kin, and it becomes unthinkable to eat them (though the pain that this arbitrary boundary sometimes causes can be witnessed in the 4-H livestock barn at the end of any state fair.)
We also readily make other humans into fictive kin, fictive prey, and fictive ritual sacrifice.* Just listen to Glen Beck - other Christians in this Christian nation are our fictive kin, Al Qaeda aka any and all Muslims, are our fictive prey, and "men and women over there" are the ritual sacrifice.
*I'm aware that ritual sacrifice is itself a fiction - so maybe there's a better word there. It also seems to have figured in how people can eat animals if they think eating people is wrong but don't have this idea that there's a huge difference between humans and animals.
Posted by: Vicki Baker | Sep 9, 2010 10:36:55 AM
Cynthia:
Careful with the ecological fallacy: No doubt your brain is as big as anyone else's. But the reason is that you have inherited the DNA of countless generations of humans who have eaten meat. The argument is that collectively, as a species, our brains grew to their present size in part because our ancestors chose to eat meat in addition to plants. That doesn't mean that every single human eats (or should eat) meat, or that vegetarians will develop a smaller brain.
Posted by: Pablo Policzer | Sep 9, 2010 11:39:04 AM
I think it's worth bearing in mind that the moral argument for vegetarianism is based on an ASSUMPTION that non-human animals experience conscious suffering in the way that we humans do.
If you are willing to eat plants, don't flinch at killing fungi, bacteria, or certain groups of animals like insects, then you are drawing a line on what organisms you THINK experience suffering. Someone else may draw the line elsewhere, perhaps saying that only humans experience suffering (and though we might balk at that, bear in mind that there is no scientific evidence whatsoever for consciousness in other animals). Aren't you therefore only entitled to criticize those meat eaters in terms of their opinions on animal consciousness, but not in terms of morality, since they may live by the exact same moral code as you (cause no suffering)?
Posted by: D's Advocate | Sep 9, 2010 1:48:51 PM
Justin
I know you aren't proposing banning meat-eating, just inquiring as to justification, but wouldn't any argument against it also require us to reach out and prevent other carnivores from eating meat as well? If it is indeed a moral issue, could we really just stand by and let it happen?
Posted by: Carlos | Sep 9, 2010 1:49:19 PM
Pablo,
Of course I know this. I was being facetious.
I was lampooning the elaborate and far-fetched justifications to rationalize the cruel and unnecessary. It really doesn't need this much discussion.
Justifications are the root of all evil. I'm convinced of it.
Posted by: Cynthia Haven | Sep 9, 2010 1:56:39 PM
D's Advocate - you say: "There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for consciousness in other animals." This is demonstrably false, although the definition of consciousness is obviously subject to debate. You may as well say there is no scientific evidence for consciousness in other humans.
I propose an empirical test for whether a living being "experiences suffering." If it actively resists attempts to kill it, one could reasonably assume it has a desire to avoid being killed. Fruits and vegetables do not run away when you try to eat them - one might imagine them "consciously" giving themselves up for food.
Also, a basic understanding of the biological evolution of nervous systems can provide some support, admittedly speculative, for making distinctions between the experiences of pain in higher and lower order organisms. While both cockroaches and orangutans will try to avoid being killed, there is a rational basis for assuming that the experience of pain/suffering in a primate is closer to our subjective experience than that of insects, etc.
Posted by: eli | Sep 9, 2010 3:17:08 PM
Carlos - Other carnivores have a moral justification for eating meat: self-preservation. The ethical argument for vegetarianism is founded on situations where humans do not need to kill other animals to ensure their own survival.
Posted by: eli | Sep 9, 2010 3:24:14 PM
I'm afraid that's not true, Eli. Things are far more tricky than you suppose, or as your "empirical test" depends upon to work. Take, for example, an evolutionary argument: systems that remove an organism from harm will be selected for, even without any internal understanding that harm will occur. Or think about simple reflex actions even in us: they definitely function to save us from harm, but they're not consciously controlled at all.
But really, the reason I used such strong language ("no scientific evidence whatsoever") is based on the distinction between plain ol' neural activity and neaural activity accompanied by a phenomenological experience, the whole first-person subjective feeling, qualia, the redness of red, whatever you want to call it.
Since we don't know what any external signs of consciousness would be, nor what the internal neural mechanisms that presumably give rise to it would look like, we cannot infer on the basis of evidence that any other animals have consciousness. As to whether other humans have it, we can at least make an argument based on personal experience generalized to others based on the fact that we all have the same types of brains and exhibit similar behavior (give or take)—even if we don't know what aspects of our brain or behavior are key.
There's a lot of literature on the trickiness of demonstrating consciousness. Try reading up on "the hard problem" if you need a place to start.
For the record (the, erm, anonymous poster's record), I think a lot of animals do have forms of consciousness, but I don't pretend to have scientific evidence for this.
Among the strongest evidence for consciousness would be a correlation between basic "core consciousness" (as Damasio terms it) and the function of primitive parts of the brain—parts of the brain shared by many other vertebrates. But this is purely correlative and not conclusive.
Posted by: D's Advocate | Sep 9, 2010 3:51:21 PM
I think it's wrong to talk about suffering, because in ideal situations suffering is non-existent--a couple seconds at the end of the animal's life, at most. I think the right question to ask is whether individuals have the right to decide for themselves the time when they die. And I'm okay with chickens not having that right.
Posted by: billy | Sep 9, 2010 7:25:55 PM
D's A. - I'm still not sure why inflicting pain and/or death on an organism with second-order "internal understanding" of pain should be ethically worse than inflicting plain ol' first-order neural pain. Is one less morally culpable when inflicting pain on a semi-"conscious" (by your definition) infant, or a developmentally disabled adult? In any event, arguing about the nature of consciousness is a red herring as far as i'm concerned - the issue for me is about the experience of pain and death.
Talk about chicken rights does seem silly, Billy. But the question of whether animals should have a right to not be cruelly farmed and slaughtered - or the more relevant question of whether we humans have the ethical right to engage in this behavior - is not quite so clear. I admit that many cases involve subjective judgement, and that there is room for honest disagreement. But I would argue that an ethical consensus is building against many of the widespread forms of animal mistreatment in food production.
Posted by: eli | Sep 9, 2010 10:13:14 PM
I actually agree with Billy's last remark—but to respond to your point, Eli:
You say that consciousness is a "red herring" because you're talking about the "experience of pain and death?" Um... you can't have experience without consciousness! It's kinda fundamental.
Posted by: D's Advocate | Sep 9, 2010 10:24:08 PM
To be more clear, I'm not talking about the difference between feeling something and thinking about the fact that you're feeling something; I'm talking about the difference between feeling something and not feeling anything at all (zero phenomological content, no qualia, no redness to red, etc.).
In other words, if there's nothing that it's like to be a cow, then slaughtering one is no different than picking a blueberry. Ethical rights go out the window.
Posted by: D's Advocate | Sep 9, 2010 10:38:34 PM
I guess we don't mean the same thing in talking about consciousness and experience, which is why I think it's a red herring. I thought your definition of consciousness was self-reflection, as opposed to mere "experience of pain," which I took to be lower level of neural activity. So say a fish might experience pain and death without having (your definition of) consciousness. Let's not argue semantics. Animals feel pain and appear to fear death, whether consciously or reflexively. So do you care about that or not?
Posted by: eli | Sep 9, 2010 10:48:42 PM
@eli: "Other carnivores have a moral justification for eating meat: self-preservation."
Well let's say we could provide African Lions with alternative food sources and condition them to not chase prey. Would that be a preferable moral condition for all concerned? If we could, should we?
Posted by: Carlos | Sep 9, 2010 10:53:33 PM
Carlos - Maybe after we enforce global vegetarianism and criminalize meat-eating by humans we can get to work on that project. Lay them lions down with some lambs.
Posted by: eli | Sep 9, 2010 11:06:45 PM
No, I'm not talking about self-reflection. Nor is this an issue of semantics.
A fish can't experience pain without having consciousness. Experience requires feeling something. Or you might as well say a toaster has experiences.
And you can't categorically say that "animals feel pain." We just don't know that, plain and simple. You can believe they do based on faith, or you can act on a hunch or feeling, or figure it's better to err by assuming they do and being wrong then assuming they don't and being wrong——but just don't pretend it's supported by empirical evidence. Our understanding of the physical basis of, or indeed even the functional purpose, of consciousness is just not there yet.
[I know it might sound silly to say we don't know the function of consciousness, but there are some who think it's completely epiphenomenal, and even those who don't struggle to come up with what it actually *does*. Believe me, this is one of those subjects where nothing is as simple as it seems. This link might help: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/]
And for the record, I care a great deal about whether or not animals feel pain. Hence the name I took for these comments.
Posted by: D's Advocate | Sep 9, 2010 11:23:04 PM
eli: "But I would argue that an ethical consensus is building against many of the widespread forms of animal mistreatment in food production."
Yes, I agree with you. But if the animals aren't suffering (or experiencing pain), then is it okay to eat them? Is it okay to raise chickens for the sole purpose of killing them when they reach a certain age, as long as they live a happy life? I think this is the interesting question here.
Posted by: billy | Sep 10, 2010 12:17:05 AM
@D's Advocate:
The kinds of arguments you forward are purely intellectual and utterly removed from human lived-experience. They sound like they're coming from a Martian, or worse, (as Eli hinted) a behaviorist.
Anyone who has lived on this planet amongst animals (pets, for example) knows for a fact that higher mammals feel pain in ways very similar to the way we do. It is downright perverse (and a waste of other people's time and intelligence) to suggest otherwise. You don't impress anybody with your claim that you in fact "care a great deal about whether or not animals feel pain." Would you talk with the same air of sophistication and disinterestedness about the (again, purely hypothetical) pain the Jews may or may not have felt as they were experimented upon by Nazi doctors? Btw, those doctors most probably didn't bear any malice towards the Jews, they were just advancing human scientific knowledge, using beings they considered less than human.
All you need to know is that if you find the Nazis' treatment of the Jews abhorrent, then consistency demands that you find human treatment of animals equally abhorrent. And mind you, this demand for consistency is entirely independent of the justifications for such treatment. George Monbiot is buying into a nakedly anthropocentric argument to justify his treatment of animals as things rather than as sentient beings.
Posted by: M73 | Sep 10, 2010 12:57:14 AM
Suddenly I feel like I’m asking someone to question their religion...
The idea that all animals may not hop around like Disney characters with rich human-like mental lives is not purely intellectual, nor utterly removed—though I don’t doubt you find it disturbing (though it was the dominant belief for a while, foolishly, I think). But reality isn’t black and white and most things exist on a spectrum. And that “Martian” call you accuse me of making is something most people do: where do YOU draw the line? Where do you say that this behavior is “clearly consciously driven” and that one isn’t? Do you think termites are conscious? What about plants that recoil when touched? (actually, having seen the incredible time lapse photography of plants in those Attenborough series, the idea that plants don’t move no longer convinces me).
And I love how you’ve managed to equate me with Nazi doctors. Nice. Clearly I am not only blind, but a monster at heart.
This is a very touchy subject, especially as we all love our pets (me included—oh, but you’re not impressed?). In a past life I actually did research in this subject, driven, yes, by a love for animals that I still hold. Being in the field showed me that this question is immensely more complex and tricky than people assume or would like to think (particularly those who can see plain as day that little Billy the kitten/turtle/pet rock wants to hear all about my day). And I saw that the field is GOING NOWHERE right now. In other words, we can’t seem to find a way to gather empirical evidence for something so many people, you included, take as completely obvious. Consider that for a moment, please. I think it’s actually pretty profound (and no, it doesn’t mean disbelieving in consciousness or leaping into solipsism).
(By the way, you rightly insinuate that behaviorism is dead, replaced largely by cognitive studies—but cognition does not equal consciousness.)
Regarding your example, consistency demands that those who abhor factory slaughter of humans (Holocaust) also abhor factory slaughter of animals IF animals are also humans. You take it as a fact that (I guess all) animals are conscious. I’m pointing out that that isn’t quite so straightforward.
I suppose in the end I’m arguing for a kind of agnosticism, weighted for different species. Why, I’m no longer so sure. Probably because I hate seeing the unquestioned certainty that lies behind fundamentalism. Because I admire open, honest (including being honest to oneself, even when it hurts) intellectual humility. I abhor cruelty to animals, but want to do so for the right reasons. I realize most people don’t question things nearly as much.
Posted by: D's Advocate | Sep 10, 2010 9:36:00 AM
Billy,
Perhaps we should take a cue from Cynthia Haven and not try to justify things? If you're not bothered by a chicken being quickly killed after living a good chicken life, roaming free on a field, then go ahead and eat humanely raised meat? I'm sensing that reasoned inquiry doesn't get one very far in this topic...
Factory farms, though, are an abomination, for so many reasons. Abolish them.
Posted by: D's Advocate | Sep 10, 2010 9:44:06 AM
@Devil's Advocate:
1. Agreed, there is a spectrum. But isn't the positing of a spectrum a sophistic red-herring in the context of the current discussion? We are talking about sheep and pigs and cows, not single-celled organisms that use cilia to sense their surroundings. So agreed, we have no way of conceptualizing how qualia like pain are felt at the 'lower' end of the spectrum. But we're pretty damn sure that we share nearly the same sensory-nervous apparatus as the higher mammals. Heck, even their behavioral responses to physical stimuli seem similar to our own. So where is the mystery here? I just don't get it.
2. Well, if the approach is purely empirical/behaviorist then obviously the field will get "NOWHERE," as you put it. And using such an approach, you'd get to the same nowhere even if the object of study happened to be human animals. Positing the existence of other minds and other pains requires a first-person perspective and a rejection of solipsism and other such crazy academic possibilities. Being resolutely "empirical" should not mean dispensing with our basic intuitions about other beings. A "proper" approach cannot fail to be phenomenological and cognitive.
3. "consistency demands that those who abhor factory slaughter of humans (Holocaust) also abhor factory slaughter of animals IF animals are also humans." That's not quite the logic of the sentience argument. The IF clause would have to be rewritten thus: IF animals are also sentient beings. Now it sounds more like a no-brainer, right?
Posted by: M73 | Sep 10, 2010 10:40:09 AM
Thank you, M73, for the reply.
1. I don’t think you have to go down to single-celled organisms to find non-consciousness. For example, I find it hard to imagine fish having consciousness, though I admit to a massive bias against things that don’t make facial expressions we can read (and that massive bias is part of the problem as well as our guide). But yes, I think when it comes to sheep, pigs and cows, we probably agree, for whatever that’s worth—I’ve never been trying to argue my personal beliefs here.
2. The approach is purely empirical, yes, but not behaviorist. Behaviorism intentionally ignored mental life to study only external actions. In this case we’re not ignoring mental life, we’re looking for it. But doing science does mean rejecting intuition, completely and totally. It wouldn’t be science if it didn’t. I imagine the only real source for progress in understanding consciousness will come from neurological studies of our brain activity, though it’s conceivable that even that will always remain correlative.
3. I don’t think it’s no-brainer, no. Not if you’re trying to go on any sort of certainty or are claiming your knowledge to be backed up by science. If you’re talking about making a decision based on intuition and limited information, I’m with you. But I don’t think we should be using words like “fact” or “obvious.” These issues are of central importance to our lives with animals, and developing a scientific understanding requires tackling all those problems which others dismiss as academic. But it may be that we have to do without a scientific answer on this issue.
Thanks for talking.
Posted by: D's Advocate | Sep 10, 2010 11:18:51 AM
D's A - You lost me when you suggested slaughtering a cow could be equivalent to picking a blueberry. Interesting discussion though.
Posted by: eli | Sep 10, 2010 11:39:04 AM
Vegetarianism is part cult, and part eating disorder.
The only thing that separates me morally from a moral vegetarian, is information and experience.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Sep 10, 2010 9:36:08 PM
Post a comment