Author Archive for Alex

The Scavenger: “Eating animals may be ‘natural’ but so what?”

Published
by
Alex
on August 17, 2010
in Thinking
. 2 Comments

In my latest article for The Scavenger, I explicate two reasons why, “It is ‘natural’”, fails as a justification for eating animals. Read it here.

I’m Vegan documentary

Published
by
Alex
on August 11, 2010
in Vegan Stuff
. 0 Comments

Vegans from all over North America come together to share their stories for I’m Vegan, a documentary web series. Eric Prescott, of the Boston Vegan Association and other projects, is the creator/director. Jen and I were interviewed for I’m Vegan while we still lived in D.C. The goal, if I understand it, is to normalize veganism: here are living, breathing vegans and they are just like you…save for the speciesism.

Here is the link to the “official” YouTube site for all the documentaries; below is just one example.

Is death a harm?

Published
by
Alex
on August 8, 2010
in Thinking
. 3 Comments

This is strictly philosophical, mind you, but for some time now I have been thinking through various arguments that purport to “prove” that death is a harm. Recently, in an “animal rights” forum, I wrote a few paragraphs on the topic. The question that instigated the thread was:

I know this is his idea, not mine, so I’d like to source him in an article I’m writing.

Basically, he follows the happy meat logic to it’s ultimate conclusion by saying that if he broke into a neighbors house and killed them by lethal injection while they slept he would have done no wrong.

I refuted that by explicating Peter Singer’s position (Singer, of course, is often the stand-in for “happy meat logic” for abolitionists like Francione). I wrote,

I am not sure “happy meat logic” would support the painless killing of human animals. As Francione often does, it seems to me that that argument is directly tied to Singer’s reasoning, but of course Singer would disagree with painlessly killing humans (most of them) because humans have an interest in continued life. “Happy meat logic” rejects that premise as it relates to animals; to wit, animals do not have an interest in continuing to live.

Someone then qualified my statement with David Sztybel’s defense of Singer. Basically, Sztybel correctly argues that Singer advocates what might be called the precautionary principle: “in the face of ignorance or doubt,” I suggested, Singer believes “we should assume nonhuman animals are future oriented, and therefore, have an interest in continuing to live.”

The comments that followed were various reflections about the “will to live” in all forms of life in an attempt, I suspect, to challenge Singer and indirectly support Francione. I argued that these attempts all fail.

It seems to me that you are all missing Singer’s point. The question is not, “Do living things struggle to survive?” but, “Do living things have a subjectively experienced interest in continuing to live?” Francione’s response to Singer answers the first question: yes, teleologically, all living things struggle to survive (as a biological imperative). That is an obvious empirical claim that Singer wouldn’t challenge. However, to the second question, a teleological approach does not work because it fails to establish that these same living things are subjectively experiencing their struggle to survive as an interest (i.e., they are not thinking to themselves, for example, “I want to still be alive next week”). Singer argues that without an autobiographical sense of self, the answer is that some animals (and insects) probably do not have an interest in continuing to live. However, and this is important, we might be wrong about that. And given the potential significance of making an error on this matter, we ought to give animals the benefit of the doubt whenever possible (i.e., the precautionary principle).

By analogy, consider reproduction. Teleologically, all living things have an interest in propagation (at the genetic level, certainly). But the important question here is does my dog think to herself that she would like to have children, or that she is in existential despair when after trying to conceive she can’t have a child. If the answer is no, then my dog does not have a subjectively experienced interest in procreation, and therefore, spaying her would not be a harm on Singer’s account.

I might add that for this very reason Francione’s deontological argument falls flat when he tries to defend spaying and neutering. He necessarily has to make a consequentalist claim to defend spaying and neutering because all animals certainly have a teleological interest in procreation, and therefore, by parity of reasoning, if Francione argues for an animals’ “right to life” because they have an interest in living, their interest in procreation should similarly be protected by a “right”.

It was then asserted that death is the ultimate harm, to which I summed-up some of my conclusions thus far.

But you stop existing, which means, strictly speaking, there is no you anymore to experience the harm. And if you are not around to experience the harm, how can you say you have been harmed? Singer’s approach, I think, fails for this reason. As I sit now, living is in my subjectively experienced interest. However, once I die, there is no me anymore to experience that interest going unfulfilled. And therefore, how am I harmed? Likewise with Regan’s argument that death is a harm because it prevents me from having future good experiences. Death is, on this account, the ultimate impediment to happiness, as it were. However, as with Singer’s account, it seems to me that since death means the end of you, the experiencing being, then how can we say that you have been harmed by this ultimate impediment to future good experiences? You no longer exist to experience not experiencing those (future good experiences).

And Francione’s argument is teleological, which is complicated, and does not, in my opinion, establish why this teleological interest ought to give rise to moral obligations while others do not. For example, children probably have a teleological interest in procreation, but for consequential reasons, we wouldn’t want to let them realize that. This is to say, Francione is bringing consequentialism in through the backdoor to ground his theory of “rights”. It is the consequences of realizing X interest that determines whether or not we put a “moral fence” around it, and if the consequences are bad, then that “moral fence” comes down.

A fictionalized A.L.F. story

Published
by
Alex
on June 13, 2010
in Reading
. 0 Comments

“They build the cages, we crack them open. That’s the way of the world.”

Bold Native

Bold Native is a fiction feature film. Charlie Cranehill, an animal liberator wanted by the United States government for domestic terrorism, emerges from the underground to coordinate a nationwide action as his estranged CEO father tries to find him before the FBI does. The film simultaneously follows a young woman who works for an animal welfare organization fighting within the system to establish more humane treatment of farmed animals. From abolitionists to welfarists, Bold Native takes on the issue of modern animal use and exploitation from several angles within the context of a road movie adventure story.

I was banned, but why?

Published
by
Alex
on June 10, 2010
in Fuck Off
. 4 Comments

Do you ever find yourself banned from this or that blog because of your vegan advocacy? I have. Of course belligerence should not be tolerated. We are, after all, at least pretending to have reasonable conversations in the blogosphere. (I use “pretending” purposefully and quite literally here.) But belligerence aside, why have you been banned?

A stupid comment? If a comment is stupid the other participants will surely recognize that and move on. Are you a “troll”? I am not sure what that means exactly. If I post a comment on a thread, and then return again and again and again to respond or post further comments, I am hardly “trolling”. Participating seems more accurate. Indeed, if I return again to yet another thread to comment or whatever my case against “trolling” seems even stronger. Was the comment off-topic, making it somewhat nonsensical? Again, if the comment is so nonsensical, the other participants will surely recognize that and move on.

Well, I was banned. And let me explain to you why.

I began commenting here, which was a conversation defending dairy consumption against vegan challenges. The defenses offered, as I clearly showed throughout the thread, are lame. The thread was indeed “hijacked” by this conversation, but the reason why this was so was because the original blog entry and the pro-dairy comments that followed were so silly and vapid. The thread ended on a patently absurd note:

But in the interest of discussion, and as a sort of end thought to this thread (on my part), I will explain one of the reasons I haven’t gone vegan: fear. I fear developing a holier-than-thou attitude. I fear becoming closed minded and failing to show respect for the personal choices made by others. I fear feeling compelled to stand in judgment of almost everyone I know and their food choices. I fear coming across to people as you have come across to me here.

That was the author of the blog entry, an entry attempting to defend the consumption of dairy. In other words, this blogger continues to needlessly cause harm and death because she is afraid that if she does not, the ethical conviction compelling her decision to go vegan will “cause” her to judge other people who do not make a similar decision. (Does she feel similarly when confronted by a racist? The reason why I stop-short of this whole “human equality” thing is because I might come across as all “judgy” and “holier-than-thou” when I meet someone who simply does not like black people.)

This is to say, she does feel ethically compelled to go vegan (or else she could have easily defended her decision against my “holier-than-thou” (read: logical) challenges), but if she goes vegan she might become “close minded”. (Well thank god for that; her concern for others whom she might “judge” is really quite moving, although the cows who unnecessarily suffer and die in the process of saving others from her “close mindedness” probably feel otherwise.)

So, that was that thread. Yesterday, this blogger posted a short entry about HSUS. (And she cited “Humane Watch” as evidence for her position, which is like citing “The Center for Consumer Freedom” to challenge those who think that smoking cigarettes could possibly lead to bad consequences…). The blog entry was not very interesting (much like most of her others). However, like all those others, I read it. I only comment, however, when I feel it is necessary. And this particular post about HSUS had an ongoing thread that demanded a comment. So I did.

Both of the following comments were on the thread prior to my arrival. (I was not around to draw these thoughts out.)

Wayne’s a creep, and his organization is the biggest scam in animal activism history. I don’t much like PETA either, but at least they’re honest about who and what they are.

Or this:

I just think that most average people aren’t fooled by the bullshit rhetoric PETA spews. Most people seem to understand that they’re hypocrite “vegan” activists with little real-world application…

How can I not respond to comments like that? Suffice it so say, the thread quickly became a “me” (i.e. a defense of PETA and HSUS) against “them” (i.e. those continuing with similar arguments). Now, more often than not I do not support PETA and HSUS. But we should at least force people to challenge these organizations validly, without just making things up and criticizing all “animal rights” thought in the process. And that was my point throughout the thread: respond to misinformation and correct the record on “animal rights”, as it were. And then I was banned.

(The person cursing at me constantly, of course, went unpunished…)

I was banned because:

You only comment on this blog in order to promote veganism and bash anyone who isn’t a vegan.

(”Bash”? Or do you mean: logically challenging non-veganism by pointing out obvious inconsistencies?) But in the first instance, YOU started the conversation about veganism (trying to defend dairy), and I showed YOU that your arguments were stupid. In the second instance, YOUR fellow “pet lovers” started bashing PETA and HSUS, which I responded to in the only way possible: to correct their misunderstandings by recourse to what PETA and HSUS actually argue and so on. And I was banned.

(Was I perhaps banned because of some cognitive dissonance? Remember, she feels compelled to become vegan, but for the possible “judgy-ness”. Oh my…She allows other people to lambaste “vegan hypocrites”, but bans those same “vegan hypocrites” who come to their own defense.)

I suggest an email asking about her inconsistency in applying the rules. She can be reached here: eiderdown@yesbiscuit.com

If you do not want vegans to “hijack” threads then don’t A) try to defend yourself against arguments for veganism and B) allow other commenters to call vegans “hypocrites” and the like.