Answering questions regarding why we ought to care about anything can be quite difficult. From the perspective of our universe as a whole the intentions of a few self aware lumps of water and carbon, inhabiting a single pale blue dot, orbiting one of hundreds of billions of stars, in just one of billions more galaxies, couldn't be more trivial. However, to us, the inhabitants of that pale blue dot, those intentions determine our very existence.
A great deal can be gleaned about why we act the way we do from evolution by natural selection. In a large portion of social encounters in which we can expect a large number of future interactions with another individual, the strategy that will yield the best expected outcome for ourselves is a tit-for-tat strategy, which means we act generously in our first encounter with the individual and then in all future encounters act toward them the same way they acted toward us in our previous encounter. Members of past populations who happened to possess genes predisposing them to using this strategy were more likely to pass on their genes to future generations.
While evolution can do an excellent job of explaining why we act in the ways we do, it has nothing to say about the way we ought to act. On some occasions our own interests will come at odds with what is most likely to propagate our genes. Maxing another character in WoW is unlikely to improve your chances of reproduction, yet people continue to attempt this task by the millions.
Many people choose to act in whatever way they feel is most in their own self-interest. Often times self-interest will still include some cooperation, but the ultimate goal is still the most personal benefit. As an individual making a personal decision for oneself, this decision is quite understandable, but as a conclusion on how we ought to act, it seems to place an unjustifiably high importance on solipsism. For each of us, our own interests are what is important. We also have every reason to believe that for everyone around us, their own interests are held in that same high regard. If we ignore the solipsism for a moment, the decision that would be of the most combined importance between all lumps of water and carbon would be to act in whatever way we could to maximize the fulfillment of interests.
Humans are by no means the only species with interests. If you have ever seen a baby pig squealing and writhing as its tail is being docked, you would say without doubt there is an animal expressing a strong interest. Similarly, the pig likely has a similar interest, that it is not yet aware of, in not suffering the medical consequences of leaving the tail undocked in factory farming conditions.
If we are to live up to our goal of acting to maximize the fulfillment of interests, then this cannot include only the human species. In the case of non-human animals our efforts can often go much farther than they would with humans. For less than a cent donated, Vegan Outreach estimates they are able to save a life. Compare that with the roughly $100 it would cost to save a human life in some of the poorest countries. This is still a tiny amount when compared to the tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars many people expect in medical care in first world countries.
Many humans still suffer a great deal of pain which could be treated, but in comparison to the lifetimes of confinement and often torturous cruelty most non-human animals endure in today's factory farming conditions, this human suffering is a walk in the park. When combined with the relative simplicity of merely changing our diet, veganism clearly becomes an ethical imperative.
If you have not yet read the Why Skeptic question to our blog, I recommend doing that now as well.
Helping to promote reason and skepticism in the animal rights community one issue at a time.
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Why Vegan?
Labels:
animal rights,
ethics,
morality,
morals,
Peter Singer,
philosophy,
utilitarian,
utilitiarnism,
vegan,
Vegan Outreach,
veganism
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Is Veganism a Personal Choice?
Many people accuse vegans of being too pushy on the grounds that veganism is merely a personal choice. They are using that phrase “personal choice” not in the sense that it is a decision we have made of our own accord (as opposed to when you take off your tin foil hat and the government places the decisions there for you), but rather in the sense that it is something which is acceptable for everyone to have their own unique opinion on.
What is it that makes something a personal choice in the latter sense? Some things we can agree clearly aren't personal choices. “I choose not to murder people, but if that's your cup of tea go right ahead.” or “Molesting children isn't for me. It is your own personal decision what you want to do in that arena though.” Clearly these examples are not going to fly. Some other things clearly are personal choices. “I don't buy orange carpet because I think it looks tacky.” I might advise someone against getting orange carpet, and might even pass some negative judgment against their decorating ability, but I would still fully recognize that they ought to be able to choose any color of carpet they like.
Some other things are not as clear. If someone wishes to eat a highly unhealthy diet putting their own health at risk, most of us would agree that is entirely up to them. If we then point out that the rest of society will then be expected to pay in the form of higher taxes and higher insurance rates to cover for this person's exceedingly high medical costs, suddenly their action becomes much less of a personal choice unless they are willing to cover the full cost of their actions themselves.
In the previous example, when the person's actions were only having a personal impact, we viewed it as a personal choice. When the impact extended to have significant implications for others it was no longer a personal choice. However, when the person once again offered to prevent the cost to others it became their personal choice once again. It appears that we judge something as a personal choice if the only individual who will suffer from it is the one who made the choice.
People who are vegan for animal rights reasons are doing so because of the impact our actions have on other animals. The entire animal rights argument is based upon a characteristic which clearly defines it as not being a personal choice. Accordingly it is unproductive to criticize animal rights based veganism as a personal choice without addressing the underlying animal rights message first.
What is it that makes something a personal choice in the latter sense? Some things we can agree clearly aren't personal choices. “I choose not to murder people, but if that's your cup of tea go right ahead.” or “Molesting children isn't for me. It is your own personal decision what you want to do in that arena though.” Clearly these examples are not going to fly. Some other things clearly are personal choices. “I don't buy orange carpet because I think it looks tacky.” I might advise someone against getting orange carpet, and might even pass some negative judgment against their decorating ability, but I would still fully recognize that they ought to be able to choose any color of carpet they like.
Some other things are not as clear. If someone wishes to eat a highly unhealthy diet putting their own health at risk, most of us would agree that is entirely up to them. If we then point out that the rest of society will then be expected to pay in the form of higher taxes and higher insurance rates to cover for this person's exceedingly high medical costs, suddenly their action becomes much less of a personal choice unless they are willing to cover the full cost of their actions themselves.
In the previous example, when the person's actions were only having a personal impact, we viewed it as a personal choice. When the impact extended to have significant implications for others it was no longer a personal choice. However, when the person once again offered to prevent the cost to others it became their personal choice once again. It appears that we judge something as a personal choice if the only individual who will suffer from it is the one who made the choice.
People who are vegan for animal rights reasons are doing so because of the impact our actions have on other animals. The entire animal rights argument is based upon a characteristic which clearly defines it as not being a personal choice. Accordingly it is unproductive to criticize animal rights based veganism as a personal choice without addressing the underlying animal rights message first.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)