Journeyman Philosopher

Continued from yesterday.

Peter Singer’s vegetarianism cares about moral consistency. If we are violating the rights of an animal by eating it, we better have a damn good reason for it. I will write the argument down in its basic steps and then explain it after for clarity.

P1) Suffering is a bad thing.

P2) Suffering originates when a beings wants/rights are violated.

P3) Eating meat violates the beings that we eat want to survive and right to survive.

P4) Eating meat thereby causes suffering to this being.

C) Therefore we shouldn’t eat meat as it violates other beings wants/rights, thereby causing suffering which is bad.

First, premise one ’suffering is a bad thing’. This premise is based on the concept that from our own experience as human beings we do not like to suffer. Instead we tend to live lifes that seek out pleasure to ourselves, and frown on all suffering placed upon us. Note: Often people try to object to this with the example of masochism, but key point is although the masochist hurts itself it does receive pleasure from it.

The second premise ‘Suffering originates when a beings wants/rights are violated’ derives from the concept that when one does not receive a want, or rather gets a want violated it makes them suffer. Think of the most basic want survival, if you are walking down the street and have someone mug you threatening your survival you suffer. The same could be said of something smaller such as someone taking a candy from you that you want; as you don’t receive your want you suffer.

The third premise ‘Eating meat violates the beings that we eat want to survive and right to survive’ follows from the last two premises. It is obvious, to most, that animals want to survive. If you have ever visited a slaughter house, or seen a slaughter house video this is most apparent. Animals don’t want to die, humans included, and killing them violates this right. As so when we force them to experience such they are violated. They are violated from their wants being voided, just as they are violated from the endeavour itself.

The fourth premise follows directly from the first three ‘Eating meat thereby causes suffering to this being’, and is self explanatory with the previous premise explanations in mind.

The conclusion follows from all premises, as should be obvious, and simply wraps together the train of thought. The gist of the argument is; that which we consider bad to ourselves we should logically consider bad to others (with certain exclusions). As suffering is a bad thing and we don’t want to suffer; in order to be consistent we are forced to take into consideration the suffering of other beings (ie we don’t take the viewpoint suffering is just bad for me).

I digress, what’s important here? At the moment we are trying to find out why a Vegetarian can eat vegetables consistently remember. The key point in connecting the argument to this is by not only understanding Peter Singer’s argument, but also understanding some underlying notions it rests on. Those being the self defence principle, moral consistency, and types of suffering.

I will cover these topics in more detail tomorrow.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS