Veganism Beyond Diet (3)
•Transferir como PPTX, PDF•
2 gostaram•2,239 visualizações
Presentation by Patrizia Setola for the Vegan Information Project's World Vegan Month 2013 events.
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (20)
Semelhante a Veganism Beyond Diet (3)
Semelhante a Veganism Beyond Diet (3) (10)
Mais de Roger Yates
Mais de Roger Yates (20)
Último
Último (20)
Veganism Beyond Diet (3)
- 1. Veganism beyond Diet Basic philosophical themes in animal ethics Patrizia Setola
- 2. Ethics • Ethics or moral philosophy = branch of philosophy concerned with issues of rightness and justice, or fairness It involves the development of systematic approaches to determine „right‟ or „wrong‟ behaviour (Rawls, 2000) • Together with religion and science, it has had a major influence on the development of attitudes towards animals
- 3. Ethical Veganism •Veganism is part of an ethical stance which rejects the view of sentient beings as commodity •Ethical vegans do not only follow a vegan diet, rather they oppose the use of animals or animal products for any purpose “The doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals.‟‟ (1951) •The term vegan was coined by Donald Watson in 1944 when he co-founded the British Vegan Society
- 4. Aristotle (384–322 BC) •Animals have sense perception but lack reason •Animals thus exist for the use of humans (the only rational animals) oNB also, on the basis of reason men are superior to women some humans are suited to be slaves
- 5. Judaico-Christian tradition • For the Bible, God created humans in his own image and free to use natural resources – including animals – for their own purposes • Christian philosophers since the Middle Ages (Augustine, Thomas Aquinas) have claimed that animals lack reason and are therefore subordinate • Judaism has placed greater importance in minimizing pain caused to animals
- 6. René Descartes (16 century French philosopher): 1. 2. Language is the only evidence of mind (thought, reason, and feeling) Only humans possess language Conclusion: animals lack reason & feeling th
- 7. René Descartes animals are just machines, therefore they don‟t deserve moral concern
- 8. Immanuel Kant „Animals are ... merely as means to an end. That end is man‟ (Lectures in Ethics, 1780)
- 9. Rationality in Animals? Betty, The New Caledonian Crow
- 11. Pythagoras • Pythagoras's school (sixth century BC, Magna Grecia) advocated a refusal to eat meat or to offer blood sacrifice • Pythagoras believed that - the human soul could transmigrate to humans or other animals after death - the ultimate goal was to free the soul from earthly existence and reunite with its divine origins
- 12. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) „The question is not, can they think nor can they talk but can they suffer‟ (1780)
- 13. David Hume (1711-1776) „Animals undoubtedly feel‟ (1742) • Sympathy is the source of moral thought • It can be extended to sensitive creatures • But justice only concerns humans (equal in power)
- 14. Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) • Rejects reason, autonomy, selfconsciousness, and power as requirements for moral concern • Moral living requires compassion for all beings who can suffer • But humans deserve higher moral concern in virtue of their intelligence (thus increased capacity for suffering)
- 15. Charles Darwin (1809-1882) • Humans evolved from other animal species by natural selection • Animals’ and humans’ capacities differ in degree not in kind
- 16. Charles Darwin „The expression of the emotions in man and animals‟ (1782)
- 17. Eastern philosophies: Ahimsa • The Indian traditions of Jainism, Hinduism, and Buddhism accept the doctrine of ahimsa Non harm to all living things Reverence to all life
- 18. Native Americans •Nature is animated by spirit •Spiritual view of animal life, which is owed respect •It‟s however allowed to kill and consume animals
- 20. Behaviourism Input (Stimulus) Black box Output (Response) The predominant scientific theory in the 1st part of the 20th century −„Inner states‟ of animals (and humans) cannot be studied
- 21. Cognitive Ethology •In 1976 Donald Griffin publishes „The Question of Animal Awareness‟ Animal behaviour can be studied in the context of evolutionary theory „Inner states‟ (beliefs, desires, feelings, etc.) used to explain behaviour
- 22. Peter Singer „Animal Liberation‟ (1975) The start of rigorous philosophical literature on the moral status of animals
- 23. Peter Singer • Exposed shocking cruelty to animals used in modern farms and laboratories • Philosophical framework inspired by Bentham o Utilitarian – goal: to maximize overall welfare o Pleasure and pain (sentience) as requirements of moral consideration o Only sentient beings can have interests o Principle of equal consideration – when deciding on our actions, we should consider equally the interests of all beings (human and non human alike) who are involved Different from equal treatment
- 24. Speciesism (Richard Ryder) • Racism = privileging the interests of one ethnic group • Sexism = privileging the interests of one gender • Speciesism = privileging the interests of one species
- 25. Peter Singer, Welfarism, and Vegetarianism • Singer does not rule out the use of animals − It is possible to use animals for human purposes as long as: a. Their interests have been considered equally b. Their use maximizes overall utility • The focus is on their treatment (welfare) • He describes himself as a „flexible vegan‟ • His argument for vegetarianism is on utilitarian grounds, namely − in raising animals for our food, we cause them more suffering than we gain by eating their flesh
- 26. Tom Regan – Animal Rights „The Case for Animal Rights‟ (1983) •To achieve justice for animals we need to recognise their rights •The most basic right is to respectful treatment One must never be used merely as a means to secure the best overall consequences •Thus, some uses of animals are ruled out categorically
- 27. Singer versus Regan Singer • Moral status is rooted in sentience • Human use of animals permitted if their interests are considered equally and aggregate welfare increases as a result • Vegetarianism (equal consideration of interests) • In a life-boat situation humans take the precedence Regan • Moral status is rooted in being the subject-of-a-life • Any form of exploitation that treats animals as mere tools is condemned • Veganism • In a life-boat situation humans take the precedence
- 28. Gary L. Francione „We must be clear that veganism is the unequivocal baseline of anything that deserves to be called an “animal rights” movement. If “animal rights” means anything, it means that we cannot morally justify any animal exploitation; we cannot justify treating animals as human resources, however “humane” that treatment may be.‟ (from Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach, blog post, 2012)
- 29. Joan Dunayer •Equal right to moral consideration and legal protection to all animals (all sentient beings) •Strong opposition to „bans‟ within the status quo (welfare regulations) •Language perpetuates speciesism (the „oppressor‟s language‟)
- 30. Mark Rowlands • John Rawls, „Theory of Justice‟ (1971) – social contract as the basis for a just society • In the „original position‟ the contracting parties are under a „veil of ignorance‟ This ensures that they choose impartially fair and just principles • But animals are left out from the contract, since: I. II. Mark with Brenin They do not contribute to society They are not „moral persons‟
- 31. Mark Rowlands • Under the „veil of ignorance‟ one does not know which species they belong to either It makes sense to extend justice to animals
- 32. Ethic of Care „The Feminist Care Tradition in Animal Ethics’ (2006) Contributions by Carol Adams, Josephine Donovan, Marti Kheel, Lori Gruen, et al. • The oppression of animals and women is interrelated (and so is their liberation) • Reason has been overvalued in traditional Western philosophy, to the detriment of our feelings of care for others • Justice – determined by our care for others - should be extended to those we care for (animals)
- 33. Ethic of Care „The Feminist Care Tradition in Animal Ethics’ (2006) - Contributions by Carol Adams, Josephine Donovan, Marti Kheel, Lori Gruen, et al. • Emotion and feeling valued over reason • Importance of Relationships and partiality Context over abstraction
- 34. Carol Adams •Consumption of meat has become central to the organization and economy of human societies •Access to meat has been traditionally controlled by men (hunters) •Men‟s control over meat supply ensured high power and elevated status over women •The link between meat-eating and male superiority survives in modern societies Meat eating identified with virility, strength, power, and maleness
- 35. Cora Diamond • „Eating Animals and Eating People‟ (1978) - Singer‟s and Regan‟s arguments for vegetarianism are wrong: - The reasons why we do not eat our dead have nothing to do with interests which warrant protection - a human being is not something to eat, and this is a fundamental feature of what it means to be human - We attribute significance in virtue of our relationships with others (human or non) - The animal as „fellow creature‟ – we share the same vulnerability in life and death
- 37. Humane treatment • Wouldn‟t it be ok to eat animals who have had a good life and have been painlessly killed? • And what about using animal products which do not involve killing the animal, such as dairy and eggs (as long as the animals are treated humanely)?
- 38. Eating animals • Wouldn‟t it be ok to eat animals who have died of a natural death? Or by accident (e.g. road-kill)? Why?
- 39. Extinction of domestic animals • In her book “When Species Meet,” Donna Haraway describes the vegan logic of avoidance as subtly supporting extermination. If vegans denounce all possible “uses” of animals, should the animals simply not exist? if there were no uses of animal products, would cows, sheep, chickens go extinct?
- 40. Are all animals equal? • Should we protect mosquitoes, leeches, and other parasites? Where do you draw the line? What criteria do you apply for this purpose?
- 41. Language Can you think of ways in which everyday language belittles and trivializes animals and animal-related issues?
- 42. Campaigns • What do you think of single issue campaigns?
- 43. Plants‟ rights • How would you answer to those who ask, „But what about plants, shouldn‟t we give them rights too?
- 44. Persuasion • Are some methods of persuading other people to adopt a vegan ethos more effective than others? • If so, can you identify them? • Why do you think they are more effective?
Notas do Editor
- In my presentation this evening I will not attempt to give either a deep or an exhaustive account of philosophy’s answers to the animal issue. (It would just not be possible due to the time constraints, and it would also result rather boring and technical). Instead, I will just provide a brief historical sketch, choosing some of the people who have engaged with the topic and contributed interesting and/or influential views in the past and in the present. Many have been left out. We will just be skimming over the surface, but I hope this will whet your appetite for more. And if you have any questions about any of the ideas presented, I would encourage you to ask. There are two parts to the talk. The first hour will be dedicated to presenting the philosophical themes. The second, after a short break, will require your participation. We will try to answer some common questions we may be asked as activists, ideally taking into account some of the ideas you’ll have been exposed to this evening. I hope this may be of some help. Thank you.
- Aristotle was a Greek philosopher, student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great.Aristotle's views profoundly shaped medieval scholarship, and their influence extended well into the Renaissance, and even beyond in some areas (including zoology, logic, and ethics itself (virtue ethics))For Aristotle all things are made of form (essential characteristics) and matter – example of a chairIn his treatise De Anima (On the Soul), Aristotle identifies three kinds of soul ("psyches“ = form of living beings): - the vegetative soul, which can grow and nourish itself (present in all living things)- the sensitive soul, which can experience sensations and move (present in animals) and the rational soul, which pertains to humans only. In addition to having the same capacities as the other kinds, the rational soul is able to receive forms of other things and compare them.
- Jewish prescriptions for the slaughter of animals for food (Kosher), condemnation of hunting for pleasure, bullfights, and dogfightsIslam also considers animals for human use, but the Koran forbids cruelty to animals (and suggests that animals have some rationality)A brief aside on ritual slaughter. In the West farm animals are routinely killed by being stunned first (in order to be rendered unconscious) and then stuck by a knife and bled. Jewish strict guidelines (very similar to the Islamic Halal) require the animal be killed by a single cut across the throat to a precise depth, causing the animal to bleed to death. Orthodox Jews argue that this ensures the animal dies instantly without unnecessary suffering, but many animal welfarists view the process as cruel, arguing that the animal may not lose consciousness immediately. This, however is true of Western methods too, as widely documented by undercover investigations into slaughterhouses, and affecting a variety of species, from poultry to cattle.
- Objections:1. Language is not the only evidence of mind - we ascribe mind to people that don’t possess language (infants, brain-damaged, autistic, etc.) - we must be able to remember without language, otherwise, how could we acquire language in the first place? - there is other evidence of mind 2. Animals do possess language - communication among animals - experiments teaching sign language to apesThere is no reason why animals should lack reason and feeling3. Even if animals did lack language and reason, it doesn’t follow logically that they don’t deserve moral concern! - we consider infants, brain-damaged, autistic, etc. as legitimate objects of moral concern
- Body (res extensa) versus soul (res cogitans)Only humans have a soul; their body – like that of other animals -is a mechanism. The lack of a soul had devastating consequences for nonhuman animals:Animals do not feel pain, their anguished cries are only mechanical responses. Thus, Cartesian philosophy sanctioned the widespread practice of vivisection and the confinement of animals on factory farms.Ironically the animal studies, showing the anatomical similarities (particularly concerning the nervous system) to humans also fostered in many an increased sensitivity/empathy towards other animals.
- Any human being is an end in themselves, while animals have only instrumental value.Human autonomy (freedom from the causal determinism of nature) justifies the human use of animalsFor Kant (like Descartes):1. only humans possess language2. reason = possession of language3. animals have no language and therefore no reason4. only rational beings can be object of moral concernConclusion: animals are not direct object of moral concern (they can only be indirectly, for the effect that cruelty towards animals has on the perpetrator)Kant opposed the idea that humans have direct duties toward nonhumans. Thus, cruelty to animals was wrong only because it was bad for humankind. Since ‘’it deadens in him the feeling of sympathy for their sufferings, and thus a natural tendency that is very useful to morality in relation to other human beings is weakened."(1785) But are animals rational?- Empiricism (importance of experience over thought as basis of knowledge)- anecdotal and scientific evidence Do they use concepts? (debate still open today)
- (accomplished through a series of strict, ascetic rules for purifying the body)Interestingly, the term ‘Pythagorean’ (meaning vegetarian) was in use until 1847, when the first vegetarian society was established in England
- What is morally relevant is not language or rationality, but rather the ability to experience pleasure and pain.Utilitarianism- To test whether an action is right or wrong, we must check whether it produces the greatest amount of pleasure/least amount of pain for the greatest number- The calculation must include all creatures capable of suffering, including animals.
- There is an entire current of Continental philosophy which has addressed the animal question, but I am not going to focus on it during this presentation- Notice the emphasis on intelligence: we’ll see later that for many contemporary philosophers interested in animal ethics (and also in Bentham), intelligence is a morally irrelevant characteristic- Also, does being more intelligent mean suffering more? Example of infants.
- Many animals, according to Darwin, possess general concepts, some reasoning ability, rudiments of moral sentiments, and complex emotionsThese claims have been widely ignored by scientists and philosophers alike until recentlyThe theory of evolution, however, makes the unbridgeable gap dividing humans and other animals difficult to sustain
- All these traditions share the belief in reincarnationJains and Buddhists emphasize the interconnectedness of all living things, recommend vegetarianism, and oppose traditional animal sacrificesHinduism has been increasingly influenced by Buddhism and Jainism, thus ahimsa has become more central. Animal-protection is rooted in self-interest due to the belief in karma (i.e. that harming life will result in later suffering for the person who inflicts the harm)
- For behaviourists only what can be observed (behaviour) and measured can be studiedExample of Pavlov’s dogs: If presented with food or the smell of food (stimulus), a dog will salivate (response). A behaviourist is not interested in what goes on in the dog’s ‘mind’ (tellingly labelled as ‘black box’)- Classical Conditioning as a form of associative learning: a behavioural response (e.g. Salivation) is taught to be associated with a new, neutral stimulus (e.g. Bell) - First studied by Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov (1849-1936)- (The dogs studied by Pavlov were held in a harness, with one of their salivary glands connected through a tube to a collecting bottle. He presented them with the stimuli and then checked how much saliva they produced)
- Contemporary cognitive ethologists are Mark Bekoff (who has co-written several papers and books with philosopher Colin Allen)and Jonathan Balcombe.Bekoff:- c.e. involves the evolutionary and comparative study of animal thought processes, consciousness, beliefs, or rationality.- e.g. social play (bow) – communication of play intentions
- Utilitarian = the test of the rightness or wrongness of an action is whether it produces the greatest amount of pleasure (or least amount of pain) for the greatest numberHuman equality as the theoretical outcome, of social movements such as women’s liberation, black liberation, and gay liberationEquality amongst human beings is based on the shared ability to suffer, not on any factual equality between beings in terms of strength, intelligence, virtue, or any other capacityIn order to be consistent we must extend moral equality to all sentient beings
- While some critics were appalled by the idea of breaking down the divide between humans and animalsOthers did not think Singer went far enough
- He advocates vegetarianismArgument is as follows:- Intensive farming causes great animal suffering For most of us the pleasure from eating meat does not outweigh the suffering of the animals intensively farmed Most of us cannot know the provenance of what we eatConclusion: Most of us should not eat meat
- Sentient animals possess the right to respectful treatment because they possess inherent value (they are individuals whose value cannot be reduced to their usefulness for others)They have inherent value in virtue of being ‘subjects-of-a-life’: Beings with, beliefs, desires, interests, etc.Rights provide limits around the individual, whereby the limits cannot be crossed even when it would be advantageous to do so for society at large.‘Equal inherent value confers merely a prima facie right not to be harmed. This right is overridden in cases such as Regan’s lifeboat scenario, in which several human beings and a dog are in a lifeboat and one individual must be thrown overboard in order to save the others. Given, Regan argues, that each of the humans has greater opportunities for future satisfaction than the dog, it is the dog who unquestionably should be sacrificed. Moreover, the number of dogs has no bearing on the outcome; it would be appropriate, Regan believes, to sacrifice even a million dogs to save one human being in such circumstances.’ (Gary Steiner, 2012)The ‘subject-of-a-life’ criterion is quite stringent and excludes some sentient animals and even some sentient humans. Thus some philosophers (Robert Garner, Joel Feinberg) have mirrored Singer in making sentience the only requirement for inclusion.
- Rights based theory rules out all human uses of animals (as pets, in zoos, in circuses, in sport, etc.)Like Singer, he argues that sentience is the sole appropriate criterion for moral status. And like Regan, he argues that moral worth is inherent. But unlike both Singer and Regan, Francione argues that the level of cognitive sophistication a being possesses is completely irrelevant to considerations of moral status.The respect principle logically entails that animals have the right not to be the property of others, since being property is necessarily conducive to being treated in an instrumental wayTheir interests will always be subordinated to those of the property ownersAnalogy between owned animals and human slaves: even if the slave is treated well, he is still dominated and dependent on the goodwill of othersBut (R. Garner, 2012)is it true that owning a piece of property necessarily leads to treating it as a mere economic commodity?Animals always depend on our goodwill to some extentLife-boat scenario for Francione:every sentient being has an interest in continued existence. If we are confronted with a burning house in which we can save either a human being (say, your child) or a dog, Francione argues that there is no principle according to which the human ought to be saved rather than the dog.
- ‘All beings who can feel need protection, all beings who can feel are entitled to rights. The sole criterion for rights should be sentience.’These include insects, such as honeybees‘Speciesist language remains socially acceptable even to people who view themselves as progressive. Speciesism pervades our language, from scholarly jargon to street slang’. (English and Speciesism, 2003)The use of ‘IT’, insults to humans using animal epithets, terms like ‘cull’, ‘harvest’, ‘tools’, etc. can you think of more?
- The original position is a hypothetical device to help us find out which political principles are just.The veil of ignorance signifies that they do not know their own characteristics, talents, social status, etc.For Rawls we should be compassionate to animals, but we do not owe them justice.Rawls’ exclusion of animals from justice can be criticized:Not all humans contribute to society either;Animals do contribute to human societyNot all humans are persons (infants, severely mentally disabled)(some) animals may be personsBeing a person implies having a concept of the good and a sense of justice
- On the interrelation of animal and women’s oppression, it is based on 4 ideas:The patriarchal domination of natureDualism of rational, scientific, and masculine versus natural, physical, emotional, and feminineReason should dominate natureThe valorisation of meat-eatingSee this with Carol AdamsLanguage useAnimal names given to women as a form of abuse (chick, cow, bitch, bird, etc.); referring to animals as thingsObjectification through property statusBoth animals and women treated as things, ‘pieces of meat’ to be used and discarded by menReason – according to the feminists – has been used as the basis to determine both:Who gets justice – resulting in the exclusion of women and animals.What justice is – neglecting the importance of sentiment/emotion in moralityReason-based approaches to animal justice are subject to 5 criticisms:Reason can go awry (yet we cannot abandon reason)The claim not to rely on sentiment is falseThey are out of touch with the actual views and motivations of activists (disgust at what we do to animals) (Brian Luke)Rights are claims against someone and therefore antagonistic (Marti Kheel) (but this is not necessarily the case)They are essentialist – they reduce animals to some capacity (for interests) while relationships are unimportant(from An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory, Alasdair Cochraine, 2010)
- The risks associated with this line of thinking:Emphasis on relationship can sanction prejudice and bias (e.g. I like cats but not dogs; Asians but not blacks, etc.); rather, political communities should be impartial in formulating obligations and policies.Can we rely on people capacity for care? the assumption is the that the natural human response to animals is one of care, which is compromised by society’s efforts (through religion, propaganda, and scientific dogma.)Political analysis allows our true feelings of care to be exposed.Is there such a thing as a single natural attitude that all human beings share?
- (1990)Once again, women and animals as pieces of meat for the sexual or gustatory gratification of men.Parallel between: animals at a slaughterhouse and women victims of rape, both treated like unfeeling, inert objectsPageants and animal shows, in both case individuals are displayed and paraded as objects to admire; they are reduced to mere things for the pleasure of the observer, only valued for their appearancePossible criticisms to idea of interrelation:The oppression of women and animals not necessarily linkedThe liberation of women and animals not necessarily interdependent
- Cora Diamond is a Wittgensteinian philosopher. Even though she does not explicitly refer to the feminist tradition, however, she shares some of the same concerns and solutions:A distrust in the ability of reason alone to provide a basis for the moral consideration of animals; Her emphasis on relationships;Her emphasis on sentiments of concern and empathy for the other fellow creatures.Elsewhere, Diamond talks about ‘the difficulty of reality’, whereby ‘The suffering of animals is, it exists, and we should be touched and wounded by it without the need for argumentative support’ (Diamond, 2008, p. 51). She talks of ‘the livingness and death of animals […] as presences that may unseat our reason’ (p. 74). Moral theory (particularly when resorting to universal rights) risks to ‘deflect’, ‘distort’, and ‘trivialize’ fundamental issues of justice (Diamond, 2001, p. 121). However, acknowledging the difficulty of reality as it is, does not warrant a defeatist stance. Moral theory – far from acting as deflection – can provide a framework which helps make sense of reality (Aaltola, 2010)‘Wounded we may be, but let us not become crippled.’ (ibid., p. 42).
- Francione: Bans as abolitionistCriticism of single issue campaigns,‘A single-issue campaign involves identifying some particular use of animals or some form of treatment and making that the object of a campaign to end the use or modify the treatment. The problem of a single-issue campaign is that it presents some particular use or treatment as morally distinguishable from other forms of use or treatment and by doing so explicitly or implicitly suggests that other forms of exploitation are morally less problematic’ (blog post February 2010)Campaigns should always be presented ‘within a specific framework that rejects use and emphasizes ethical veganism as the central issue’.