Y’know I wonder if Rawl’s original position would technically apply here. Part of the veil of ignorance requires you to be sentient and intelligent enough to understand the consequences either way. I think that the 1st imperative might apply better in this case.
Plus people can’t really imagine what it’s like to be a pig. 🐷
Obviously everyone is limited by the scope of understanding they have right now, I could not decide what is best for everyone in every situation and the view of the world changes over time in society.
Rawls did not consider many issues but I think that makes it easier: It is not you or me in our current situation who decides, you and me are already human so we have to decide before we are anybody and at that point we have none of those limits. If at this point you don’t want to experience suffering or injustice what prevents the you you are now to not inflict suffering and injustice on others?
Yes, you could become one with lower intelligence so maybe you decide to give them the best possibilities they can have in live. With even distribution you are 10 times more likely to end in cage an be killed than to end up as any human, it takes little imagination to see that its not desirable.
Martha Nussbaum (Justice for animals - absolute recommended read) has some good points on the shortcomings of the veil of ignorance, not invalidating but refining. She takes it and extends the thought of freedom and independence with fairness. A fairness that is not required by Rawls because in his scenario everyone has the same abilities.
Not to disagree with the usage of Kant, it is obviously valid. I personally lean more towards Kohlbergs theory of moral because I think it provides more depth, nuance. For the point made in the video I think Rawls is a good fit.
I mean the main issue, even regardless of the valid points you’re making, is that if people don’t even care about their fellow man then hoping for animal equality is a bit of a crapshoot. I really hope that we develop safe alternatives that are appealing to the masses soon.
The alternatives that are available (ie, pulses, nuts, seeds, roots, tubers, grains, vegetables, bark, fruit, buds, flowers, minerals, fungi, bacteria cultures, products of fermentation, even fuckin lichen, moss and ferns if you want) are not “unappealing” due to any intrinsic qualities they possess or do not possess. People have been manipulated into being habituated to a cruel, toxic, and destructive diet. Once a human is habituated to a diet, they resist change. Giving them more “appealing” products won’t change that, unless capital decides it is better for the masses to be habituated to a new set of products.
Is it really hidden? We don’t prosecute people for killing any animal except for other humans, or animals that humans have deemed important. Seems pretty out in the open to me, and widely accepted too (as it should be)
We prosecute people for killing certain animals that we deem important. That’s still speciesism, we don’t ask other animals which ones they think should be spared.
It’s a weird feeling being allies with countries that enforce death penalty when your own country abolished such things long ago, for example. Same with encouraging lethal force for trespassing. Or just generally having an infrastructure heavily based on weapons manufacturing and sales, as well as various military shenanigans perpetrated through-out the world.
But alas, here we are. Humanity hasen’t evolved too much regarding it’s own moral compass it would seem.
Yeah, that’s kind of how a moral compass works. We think certain things should be the way that they are, and others should not. What’s your point? Are all vegans this bad at argument?
My point is that there is no “as it should be” god given right to rape, abuse and kill animals when there is no need. You are not different to those who opose same rights for all right now. You think you are superior to others and that is justification to abuse those.
Add comment