Jeff McMahan, professor of philosophy at Rutgers University…
Our own form of predation is of course more refined than those of other meat-eaters, who must capture their prey and tear it apart as it struggles to escape. We instead employ professionals to breed our prey in captivity and prepare their bodies for us behind a veil of propriety, so that our sensibilities are spared the recognition that we too are predators, red in tooth if not in claw (though some of us, for reasons I have never understood, do go to the trouble to paint their vestigial claws a sanguinary hue). The reality behind the veil is, however, far worse than that in the natural world. Our factory farms, which supply most of the meat and eggs consumed in developed societies, inflict a lifetime of misery and torment on our prey, in contrast to the relatively brief agonies endured by the victims of predators in the wild. From the moral perspective, there is nothing that can plausibly be said in defense of this practice. To be entitled to regard ourselves as civilized, we must, like Isaiah’s morally reformed lion, eat straw like the ox, or at least the moral equivalent of straw.
But ought we to go further?
I won’t spoil the surprise by quoting further.
(h/t Black Mamba)
Sorry; typo. Should be:
The skin where it stretches also hurts, and IS [not in] sensitive…
I’ll add: damned sensitive.
” The reality behind the veil is, however, far worse than that in the natural world. Our factory farms, which supply most of the meat and eggs consumed in developed societies, inflict a lifetime of misery and torment on our prey… ”
Thanks, Kate, enjoyed much of the read, though he lost site of where he should take it~
Esin @ 7:05 am:
Interesting that you should pick up on the “lifetime of misery and torment on our prey”. Two or three decades ago the Brits ran a couple of studies extracting stress hormones from chickens.
The first study was battery raised chickens inside henhouses vs free ranging chickens outside. The battery chickens showed less serum stress hormone level than the outside chickens. The hypothetical explanation was that outside chickens had constantly to watch the sky for flying predators, whereas the battery chickens appreciated a solid roof.
The second study compared battery chickens that had straw-covered floors with battery chickens in raised coops with chicken-wire floors. The chicken-wire chickens had lower stress hormone level. No hypothesis here; just puzzlement.
Can’t find the studies now. At the time I was reading Scientific American (I was young and foolish) and Discover, so that’s where they might be.
It’s why I hunt.
That really was mental masturbation at it’s finest. Stupid, but what else would you expect from a philosophy professor?
And what about the increased suffering of plants?
That dude really needs a better hobby.
Me, I like to philosiphy as well. ‘If a cow is tipped in a field (by a deaf person)and no one else is there to hear it say “oh, crap, that hurt”, did it really say that?”
Anyway, on the plus side deer season is coming up.
Suffering–can it be eliminated? Is it desirable that it be eliminated? That could be the professor’s next topic.
I once had a job as a park nature interpeter. My supervisor foisted a Philosophy mjaor on me as my co-worker. This asshole couldn’t tell a Wren from a Song Sparrow, but by golly she considered herself my superior in every way you can think of.
My opinion of anyone who studies philosophy as anything other than a horrified look at the undue weight people give their own mere opinion hasn’t changed since: they are all self-important navel-gazing dickwads.
Posted by: Michael H Anderson at September 21, 2010 4:25 PM
Michael, I’m sorry you had to deal with a self-important moron. But, I stand as a counterexample to your statement. Not only did I major in Phil, I honored in it (additional credits in 3rd & 4th year, topped off by an oral exam by the dept. head at the end). I entered university a staunch conservative, and exited a staunch conservative.
I found the study of the various arms of philosophy fascinating, particularly the niche studies, such as phil of mathematics, phil of language, phil of law, etc. I had a pragmatic reason for these studies, as I intended to proceed to law school, I felt the critical thinking skills the study of philosophy would develop would be helpful. I never ended up getting that law degree … but that’s another story.
~~~~~~~~
The problem is not that he’s a philosopher.
It’s that he’s an ethicist, and more specifically the sort that happily takes on stupid assumptions and parades them for attention.
His logic isn’t faulty, particularly – it’s the assumptions he’s using to fuel it that are wrong.
Posted by: Sigivald at September 21, 2010 5:01 PM
Quite right. Ethics is but one branch of philosophy, and IMO, one of the least disciplined. One can simply make up their own starting premises, and flow from there. Those foundational premises need to be drawn from existing literature or thought. Note, there do not appear to be any citations in this essay.
Not that this piece doesn’t necessarily lack value, as it can spark debate, I suppose. But, boiled down to its core, it’s little more than a longer-than-usual op-ed piece, not an academic publication.
“Good jobs for Philosophers, too!”
— Firesign Theatre, “Any More Rocket Fuel For You Hard-Hats?”
Note, should have read, “…foundational premises need NOT be drawn from…”
That was a long read for sure.
But I think I can best summarize:
There is room for all gods creatures ….right next to the mashed potatoes.
Colin from Mission, thanks for the enlightening comments. If you majored in Phil and came out as you did, there must be some benefit.
But that ass STILL didn’t know a Wren from a Song Sparrow! 😉