Sophistry: a method of argumentation that seems clever but is actually flawed or dishonest; a confusing or illogical argument used for deceiving someone.
Henry S. Salt (1851-1939):
We may grant that so long as no scruple has arisen concerning the morality of flesh-eating, or any other barbarous usage, such practices may be carried on in innocence and good faith, and therefore without personal demoralisation to those who indulge in them.
But from the moment when discussion begins, and an unconscious act becomes a conscious or semi-conscious one, the case is wholly different, and it is then impossible to plead that “it does not matter” about one’s food. On the contrary, it is a matter of vital import if injustice be deliberately practised.
To use flesh-food unwittingly, by savage instinct, as the carnivora do, or, like barbarous mankind, in the ignorance of age-long habit, is one thing; but it is quite another thing for a rational person to make a sophistical defence of such habits when their iniquity has been displayed, and then to claim that he is absolved from guilt by the spirit in which he acted. The spirit that absolves is one of unquestioning faith, not of far-fetched sophistry. The wolf devours the lamb, and is no worse a wolf for it; but if he seek, as in the fable, to give quibbling excuses for his wolfishness, he becomes a byword for hypocrisy. (emphasis added)
This cannot possibly be accurate. In my many, many discussions with others about health and veganism, a common thread is clear: veganism may be healthy for 99% of the Western world – through all the obfuscation and ignorance, that much is undeniable – however, if the goal is to transform your body into professional body building status, veganism is inadequate to the task.
To defend hunting with the argument ‘I don’t kill for fun, but for food’ only follows if you don’t consume the bodies of farmed nonhuman animals. Implied in this justification is the issue of need: the violence becomes defensible because it isn’t a choice, which would mean you could simply choose not to do violence. If, however, this implied premise isn’t satisfied and you eat both farmed and ‘free’ nonhuman animals, then the argument in question is erroneous and a justification for one’s choice to act violently is required. You may eat the victim; however, the impetus for the killing, given the availability of farmed resources, is one’s choice to do so.
The reason for this choice then isn’t sustenance but something else. When ‘for food’ is proven baseless, however, which, a priori, seems to be the only justifiable excuse for causing suffering in this way, whatever the reason may be, it is reasonable to argue that it’s lacking, ethically. ‘Entertainment’ and ‘tradition’ come to mind as reasons that are truly lacking.
I can foresee an argument against this position that accepts the conclusion but qualifies the premise with ‘healthy food’. Perhaps you do have access to farmed nonhuman animal bodies but these food items aren’t nutritious. Therefore, you eat some flesh from mass sources but you supplement it with hunting. This seems reasonable, however, for it to be applicable, actually, the situation would have to be an extreme circumstance.
If you ground your defense of exploiting nonhuman animals on the principle “might makes right,” you must answer the question: Does this extend to our interactions with human animals? The question is begged in light of other ethical principles we view as axiomatic, a prohibition on human slavery, for example, and impartiality in ethical reasoning. The conclusion – We can cite “might” as justification for our actions in regard to animals, other than human – seems to be assumed in the premise, accept this is precisely the proposition in need of a defense.
“Might” doesn’t capture what could be called a second-tier of ethical reasoning; below the abstract, contextualized morality. In our interactions with others don’t we abhor force, at least in the spirit of how we think Ethics? The “fairer sex” is platitudinous – false and self-serving platitudes – however, it implies a truth: care and empathy have moral worth. We recognize this as such and our moral code has evolved to acknowledge it. Perhaps the code has evolved in this way because it’s in our self-interest to accept, in principle, these constraints. However, it is a part of what we believe is “moral action” — consider the “Prince of Peace,” or giving aid and comfort to (not exploiting because you can) the weak.
Circumventing this problem by qualifying the principle – Might makes right accept in the case of human-human interactions – is a departure from, not an embrace of, Ethics because there doesn’t seem to be a characteristic that can be rationally cited that is unique to all human animals and therefore we would be excluded from the reach of this principle. Quite the contrary: “weakness” and “strongness” are certainly apparent within our species.
What is required then is a sub-principle that separates the members of the species Homo sapiens from all other species of animal. However, these are either going to be fallacies or unsound given their self-serving or illogical nature.
You are currently browsing the That Vegan Girl weblog archives for the month February, 2009.
0 chickens0 turkeys0 ducks0 pigs0 cattle0 sheep00
Number of animals killed in the world by the meat, dairy and egg industries since you opened this webpage, not including the billions of marine animals killed annually.
