As we near the end of the semester, if I had to select one fundamental
principle; it is precisely that; fundamental principles. Many authors embrace topics yet negate first
principles. E.g., whenever we are
discussing how to make changes or improvements to an existing system or
infrastructure, we want to examine the nature of the act in question. E.g., in a recent article on CNN entitled, “Skip
the Meat on Earth Day” John Sutter discusses the efficiency of animal
agriculture absent any consideration for the animals. As for this idea of first principles, he
dismissed any such concerns with one sentence; “Animal rights aside.” This is unsatisfactory; grossly deficient.
We cannot be flippant on matters of life and
death. It is the duty of all rational
beings to thoroughly examine first principles in all facets of our day-to-day
lives. In the above example, billions of thinking and
feeling animals are slaughtered every year for our tastes. Human ingenuity seems to have outwitted us. Before we invent and implement self-described,
clever solutions to our current practices - it behooves us to examine necessary
antecedents; i.e., ought we to be killing animals at all? In the above case, we have to ask, (i) ought
we to be negating the lives of animals, and (ii) do we negate our own lives,
limiting our potential in the process?
Nice point. Presumably the intention was to avoid controversy -- "Look, whatever you think about animal rights, meat-eating is destroying the planet!" But it is pretty remarkable what moral horrors people are willing to overlook while making a putatively moral point!
ReplyDeleteIt's unfortunate that there is such a stigma against animal rights advocacy that most mainstream talk of reducing meat consumption needs to be prefaced with a distancing from any concern for the animals themselves. It's our collective cognitive dissonance on the matter that has made this a very touchy subject. The journalist may be plain neglectful in his moral reasoning, or he may be trying to strategically push a facet of the issue that wouldn't be met with immediate dismissal. If considerate people are convinced of the environmental, economic, and health related reasons to minimize consumption of animal products, it becomes more difficult for them to maintain their cognitive dissonance, and a natural empathy for the animals may resurface.
ReplyDelete