Deontology, Rights, and Meat Consumption

In his article, "Vegetarianism, Causation and Ethical Theory", Russ Shafer-Landau argues that consequentialism and deontological ethics both fail to explain why one should not consume meat. He notes the shift from arguments against factory farming practices to ones that argue against meat consumption, but in his opinion, these issues are "separable", and so the latter deserves its own set of arguments (Shafer-Landau, 85). After arguing against the consequentialist view, Shafer-Landau asks: "if we do not tie moral imperatives to benefits or harms, what are they tied to?" (92). For a deontologist, the answer to this may be that moral imperatives are tied to rights. The author states that there are two views as to why this is so. The first view, which Shafer-Landau calls the "interest view" states that our rights exist as protection of our interests, and that rights violations translate to a "setback" of our interests (92). The second view, called the "autonomy view", states that rights allow us to do as we choose, and that violations of our rights is an infringement of our autonomy (92). The author states that if we believe that permanently comatose individuals have rights, then one may have valid doubts about the autonomy view (93). Obviously, this is because these individuals have lost the ability to do as they choose which goes against the definition of the autonomy view.

Ricky Williams: Rusting Talents

In his chapter "The Good Will and the Categorical Imperative," Immanuel Kant demonstrates situations where a maxim, if universalized, would become self-defective.  He also explained the problems with these maxims in regards to the principle of humanity.  One particular scenario that grabbed my attention involved rusting talents.  Kant explained a situation where an individual chooses to, for example, play video games, eat pizza, and drink alcohol all day long (behave worthlessly) without ever being productive.  He goes on to ponder the effects if this behavior became a universal law of nature.  Would our society remain sustainable?  No, Kant proclaims.  Behaving in this manner is only possible if others are working (making the pizza, distilling the alcohol, and manufacturing/programming the video games).  The original individual's behavior is made possible by others behaving in an opposing way.  Additionally, the self-indulging behavior would preserve humanity, but it would do nothing to further it.  Moreover, "it is not enough that the action (self-indulgent behavior) does not conflict with humanity in our person as an end in itself; it must also harmonize with it" (113).  The individual's behavior clearly does not harmonize with the well-being of humanity. 

Vegetarianism on a National and Individual Scale

A recent article published on the Voice of America website revealed that there has been a sharp decrease in the amount of meat consumed in America in recent years, presumably due in part to the spread of vegetarianism. “For the first time on record, U.S. per-capita meat consumption has declined for four consecutive years, according to the most recent figures from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The six percent drop between 2006 and 2010 is the largest sustained decline since recordkeeping began in 1970. (voanews.com)” The article admits that that change is most likely due in part to economic changes in the US, but suggests that it is also has something to do with vegetarians and ‘flexitarians.’ The article notes that there has been a rise in campaigns such as “Meatless Monday”, which is implemented at DePauw, as well as many other schools and organizations around the world. A major reason why more and more people are attempting to eliminate meat from their diets is because it can be unhealthy. Additionally, livestock, especially cattle, are terrible for the environment because they must be given a huge amount of water and grain every day to survive.

            In his article, Shafer-Landau argued that there is little or no reason for an individual to become a vegetarian, even if it is the ethically correct thing to do, because that individual’s contribution on its own would have no impact on the meat industry. Although it doesn’t prove that an individual can influence the meat industry on thir own, it does report that people who abstain from meat have collectively made a difference. Shafer-Landau agrees that this is true, but seems to be greatly underestimating the influence that one person can have on others. For example, the article mentioned Joe Yonan, the food editor for the New York Times, who received numerous letters of praise for his decision to stop eating meat. It seems likely that an influential person such as him could perhaps encourage others to convert as well. Even if someone isn’t as famous as Yonan, they still have some influence of their friends, who in turn influence their friends. There is certainly a possibility that one individual converting could lead to a snowball effect. Additionally, even just a few vegetarians in a small community can have a dramatic effect. In my fraternity, for example, only a small portion of the total house are vegetarians, but because of us, some of the food served for every meal is always meat-free. And since that food is bought locally, (usually from Krogers) it could potentially have a minute effect on the amount of meat products sold by that retailer, which just might be significant enough to eventually cause enough reduction of demand to prevent one or more animals from being hurt or killed, and that is reason enough for me.

Works Cited

Baragona, Steve. "As World Meat Consumption Grows, US Appetite Wanes." Voice of America [Washinton] 3 Apr. 2013: n. pag. Voice of America. Web. 23 Apr. 2013. <http://www.voanews.com/content/as_world_meat_consumption_grows_americas_appetite_wanes/1634222.html>.

Should I Stop Consuming Meat?

In the article "Vegetarianism, Causation, and Ethical Theory" , Russ Shafer-Landau focuses on arguments against meat consumption. One of the main argument's that Shafer-Landau focuses on is the argument made by Consequentialists. Consequentialists believe that meat eating is wrong because it inflicts harm on animals. What Shafer-Landau is arguing in this article is that Consequentialists fail to show that their is an obligation to not consume meat.

False Hope:  Vegetarianism and Animal Cruelty

Animal rights is a very controversial topic especially pertaining to factory farms.  Animals at such facilities are often subjected to harsh treatment during their lives so that they can be slaughtered and sold for human consumption.  In effect, someone must be held responsible for how these animals are treated.  Russ Shafer-Landau explores the various arguments pertaining to animal cruelty in his article "Vegetarianism, Causation, and Ethical Theory".  He critiques two versions of the consequentialists' arguments towards meat eating which he dubbed the "...Inefficacy Argument..." (Shafer-Landau, 1994).

Kant's Vegetarianism

            With vegetarianism becoming a hot trend in today’s society, it is fitting that many philosophers have examined its counterpart, meat eating, and analyzed its morality under different ethical lenses. Shafer-Landau is one of those philosophers. In his paper “Vegetarianism, Causation and Ethical Theory”, Shafer-Landau evaluates which ethical theory produces the strongest argument against meat-eating and animal suffering in factory farms. Although he believes his argument using virtue ethics is by far his strongest, I see his method of Kantian ethics in reference to universalization being the greatest proof to abstain from eating meat.

Can the Golden Rule Test Morality?

The Kantian Perspective of thinking is that if anyone violates the rules then they should be punished. (Shafer-Landau 154) Many different approaches could be taken in order to delve deeper into this idea, but the first two that are brought up by Shafer-Landau are that of fairness and consistency.

            In order to test fairness and consistency two questions are brought into play, “what if everyone did that and how would you like it if that were done to you?” (Shafer-Landau 155) The golden rule, you shouldn’t do anything to others that you would not done to yourself, is brought up in chapter 11 of The Fundamentals of Ethics, by Russ Shafer-Landau, as a method to explain the second question offered above. 

Kant's Fairness and Justice and Kim Jong Un

While reviewing chapter 11, “The Kantian perspective” in Russ Shafer-Landau’s The Fundamentals of Ethics, I was reminded of the recent threats to the international community and the United States in particular by Kim Jong Un and North Korea.

            A yahoo news article by Foster Klug of the Associated Press describes Kim Jong Un’s ‘against the grain’ behavior in his title, “Pivotal NKorea Question: What is Kim Thinking?” Recently, under Kim’s heavy hand, the United States has faced threats from North Korea of nuclear holocaust with the potential for another Korean War. David Shlapak notes that this particular crisis is different than most because of  “our lack of insight… into Kim’s mind”. If he were to follow in his father’s footsteps, he’d try to push negotiations just as far as he could to receive the maximum amount of foreign aid. Most do believe, however, that Kim’s methods are more closely related to scare tactics but it is hard to be sure as he is such a young leader.

Act Utilitarianism: Fundamentally Flawed

J.J.C. Smart discusses the ideas of extreme and restricted utilitarianism, also known as rule and act utilitarianism.  In a broader sense, utilitarianism refers to the idea of assessing morality (or in this case rationality) by the consequences that result from an action or actions.  Smart eludes that rule and act utilitarianism come into the picture based on our interpretations of these "actions."  If we understand these actions to be "particular individual actions" then we judge them by their individualistic consequences.  This logic is the basis for those who have grown to adopt act utilitarianism.  This belief treats moral rules as mere rules of thumb that, in extenuating circumstances, can be broken if the total well being of the society would be improved.  Contrarily, those who believe in restricted utilitarianism determine whether or not actions fall under specific moral rules.  They are analyzed as a class of actions and if the moral rule is acceptable, so is the action.

The Limitations of Kant's Perspective

          In chapter eleven Russ Shafer-Landau summarizes, and then points out a fatal flaw of Immanuel Kant’s principle of universalizability. Kant was staunchly opposed to utilitarianism. The primary reason for this seems to be that he disagreed with the idea of consequentialism; rather he believed that the morality of an action was largely dependent on its maxim. A maxim, as Shafer-Landau describes it, is “what you are about to do, and why you are about to do it.” (Shafer-Landau 2010, 157-158) This view is perhaps more forgiving in a sense, because it forgives someone whose well-intentioned act produced harmful results. Also, unlike utilitarianism, Kant’s view saves people from having to consider every possible outcome of every decision they make. Kant’s criteria for whether or not an action is morally correct is that it must be universalizable. Kant outlined an easy test to determine if this is the case. First one has to determine their maxim, and imagine a hypothetical world in which everyone accepts and follows that same maxim. If that action could still be successfully carried out in a world where everyone else has the same goals, then that action is universalizible. (Shafer-Landau 2010, 159)

            The principle of universalizabity works well in matters of environmentalism. For example, consider someone who wanted to buy a Hummer. This would fail to pass Kant’s test of universalizabilty, because not everyone on earth could drive a Hummer, unless of course they built a Hummer that works underwater. Or if someone wanted to pollute the water because it was convenient, that would not be universalizable, since it would likely mean that there would be no clean water left, and everyone would die.

Unfortunately, as Shafer-Landau points out, this methodology only seems to address one specific type of immoral action: the kind that is self-serving, and acts as though the person committing the act was superior to others, or at least not bound by the same moral rules. This is neglecting several other genres of unethical actions, including but not limited to actions that seek to harm specific individuals or groups. (Shafer-Landau 2010, 165) I noticed that Kant’s principle would also not prevent systematic, wordwide immoral actions. For example, the maxim ‘I am going to murder people at random because I want to destroy all human life’ is easily universalizible. If everyone shared that maxim, they would need only to commit suicide, and the goal would be completed. However, random murder is pretty easily recognizable as an unethical act.

            Kant’s view, as Shafer-Landau points out, is narrow and idealistic. It fails to recognize the complexities of people’s motives. This is further shown by the fact that Kant praised integrity as being the most important virtue. (Shafer-Landau 2010, 165) This might be the case, if everyone had similar and universalizible intentions, which is obviously not the case. A white supremacist who staunchly adheres to their racist principles is still a white supremacist; if anything, their integrity in that case would make them worse. Kant seems to have an interesting idea of ethics, but one that is limited by his flawed view of human nature.

Works Cited

                    Landau, Russ. "Chapter 11-The Kantian Perspective-Fairness and Justice." In The Fundamentals of Ethics. Second ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. 154-167.

Kant and Contradiction

           Within chapter eleven of, The Fundamentals of Ethics, author Russ Shafer-Landau discusses the “Kantian Perspective.” Immanuel Kant argued against utilitarianism, wherein the ends justify the means and we should do what brings the greatest amount of benefit, by saying that the morality of actions are based on fairness. It is clear throughout this chapter that Shafer-Landau refutes the “Kantian Perspective.” One such account involves a strong argument for Kantian contradiction involving the principle of universalizability as well as Kant’s stance on the presence of some absolute moral duties.

The Imprecise Measurement of Well-Being

In chapter 10 of The Fundamentals of Ethics, Russ Shafer-Landau presents several challenges to consequentialism. Shafer-Landau sets up each of his arguments by first presenting each popular argument against consequentialism, then posing the strongest consequentialist counter argument and ends each argument by evaluating the validity of the argument. Aside from the problem of ignoring justice, one of the strongest objections to consequentialism was the indeterminate measurement system for wellbeing. The argument is that since there is no physical scale to measure the value of an action, utilitarianism is false (Shafer-Landau 136). The counterargument that utilitarians present is that by comparing scenarios that cause harm and benefit, actions can be categorized with respect to one another and this does not require situations to have numerical values. For instance, Shafer-Landau explains how the harm caused by a cholera outbreak is obviously far greater than the harm caused by a husband cursing his wife (Shafer-Landau 136). Even though there is no clear numerical value placed on an action, by comparing actions to one another, we are able to compare our options to determine which action is more favorable than the other.  He ends with the point that although this may be true in some cases, the majority of dilemmas in the real world are not as cut and dry. The most optimific act is usually unclear because we can be dealing with two situations that could similarly produce some benefit at the cost of some harm. In these situations the most optimific result becomes more about interpretation. Since the net optimific act then becomes unclear, this is why it can be argued that utilitarianism does not always give a clear answer and does not explain how we should decide when faced with a multifaceted dilemma. 

Climate Change in the American Mind:  Anthony Leiserowitz

Antony's presentation focused on identifying the key perceptions that American's hold towards global warming.  Most of the global warming information that is presented to people doesn't quite connect well.  For example, imagery of melting glaciers is easily comparable to melting ice in a glass of water.  This is a great way to show a relatively immediate impact of warmer temperatures.  However, this does not get people to buy into the long-term effects that melting glaciers will have.  Also, it limits the sense of urgency that people should take action because a majority of the human population does not live near the poles.  The glaciers are at the poles but we are not.  Therefore, it is difficult for people to feel the impact of melting glaciers on a daily basis.  Anthony offered some possible solutions towards resolving global warming before closing his lecture.

America's Veil of Ignorance and Dr. Norgaard on Climate Change

At Dr. Kari Norgaard’s Climate Change Symposium talk entitled, “Living in Denial, climate change, emotions, and everyday life, I was really interested in Dr. Norgaard’s sociological approach to climate change. I thought her discussion of America’s denial of climate change was incredibly interesting as it is something I’ve have noticed growing up but never thought to put a finger on the fact that it was actually collective denial and not just “the way it is”.

            Opposing the idea that is often present in the media that climate change is fictitious or not a problem that is actually close to home,

Effective Climate Communication

To begin, I was a little confused what the speaker, Kari Norgaard,  was going to be talking about. It turns out it was my favorite speaker that I have attended all year, mainly because I could easily understand all of her points and I really enjoyed all of the points she made and agreed with them. She is a professor at Orgeon University for sociology and environmental studies. I liked how she combined the two studies, because I believe there is a certain way that climate change should be discussed, and the way most people talk about it today is ineffective. She talked about how to effectively and appropriately talk about climate change in the hopes of gaining more people who are willing to aid in the fight against climate change.

Norgaard's first point was to talk about climate change skeptics. The way she described it made me think how ridiculous it is that people don't believe in what is happening to our world and its atmosphere. Then I thought about it more deeply, and realized I'm one of those people. It's not that I don't believe that we are polluting our world, but I do turn away from it and tend to push people away who talk to me about it. She then explained why there are so many people like me, and it relates to cultural relativism. Our culture tends to be lazy and gives up on hope easily. We are resistant to change, and don't like things that threaten our way of life now. It's hard work to make our planet safer environmentally, and we don't like that we have to change the way we even throw away our trash just to fix it.

My favorite point that she brought up was the innappropriate timing of many climate change discussions. When we're in a relaxed setting, closed off from the pressures of the outside world, we don't like to talk about such heavy topics. We want to be able to forget that in 50 years we may not be able to even live on Earth anymore, and forget the struggles of everyday life. That's why when people bring up climate change at a bar, or somewhere relaxed people tend to dismiss the severity of it. I know that when people talk to me about it on a Saturday night out at a frat, I actually walk away from them. So if we change the way we talk about it, more people will join the cause.

The Balance of Emotions and Reason

The title of the lecture given by speaker and DePauw alum Joy Meeker was Facing Discomfort: Engaging Justice, which was particularly interesting, because many of the points that she brought up seemed somewhat unfamiliar or uncomfortable to me. Near the very beginning of the lecture, she mentioned an instance in which someone told her that they believed that the ideal mediator of a conflict would be Mr. Spock from the Star Trek series. I immediately agreed with this before she had a chance to say anything else. Who better to solve a problem than someone who is as impartial and unbiased as he is brilliant? But to my surprise, Meeker went on to say that this is a terrible attitude to have towards disagreement.

Meeker, much like Alison Jaggar, believed that emotions were not only an inevitable part of how we perceive and judge things, but also a beneficial one. We feel the emotions that we do because there are good reasons for us to feel them, and so they should not at all be separate from our decision making process. This is somewhat contrary to the mainstream, somewhat positivist view that emotions should be all but shut down and barred from taking part in any serious ethical decisions. Initially, that is the view that I had aligned myself with, but on further consideration, there may be far more to it than I had initially realized.

If I may go on a somewhat nerdy tangent and return to the earlier Star Trek example, the structure of the Enterprise's leadership is aligned with Jaggar and Meeker's ideas about the dual roles of emotion and logic. Out of the entire crew, Spock possesses probably the most intelligence  and definitely the most (literally) inhuman lack of strong emotions. However, perhaps for that very reason, Spock was not the one in charge of making decisions for the crew. Dr. McCoy was an officer of nearly equal rank as Spock, but with a very different style of decision making. He would usually let reason take a back seat to his strong emotions; and would often end up in trouble because of it. The captain of the Enterprise was James Kirk, who fell somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. He would use a combination of logic and reason to solve problems, relying on mediation from both Spock and McCoy. Because of this, he was able to overcome whatever obstacles he faced.

In Freudian terms, the three characters seem to represent the three parts of the psyche: the id, the ego and the super ego. To the best of my understanding, the id is responsible for our surface-level emotions, the super-ego is the strictly calculating part of the psyche, and the ego is responsible for mediating between the other two to make informed decisions. Meeker's ideas about decision making seem to represent this model: an even balance between logic and emotion to determine the best course of action.

Utilitarianism and Intrinsic Moral Values

Chapter 10 of The Fundamentals of Ethics by Shafer Landau discusses various difficulties of consequentialism, particularly utilitarianism. Some problems include the absence of an accurate measurement of well-being, the demanding nature of utilitarianism, the problem of injustice and the rejection of intrinsic values. Among those challenges, utilitarianism’ denial of an action having intrinsic wrongness of rightness has drawn my attention.

Utilitarianism and Impartiality

Russ Shafer-Landau argues that the notion of impartiality is both good and bad for the theory of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism holds that well-being “is the only thing that is intrinsically valuable”, and that “an action us morally required just because it does more to improve overall well-being than any other action you could have done in the circumstances” (Shafer-Landau, 120). In part, this sub-theory is constructed around the idea of impartiality in how we treat all others. As Shafer-Landau argues, it seems right that we favor those closest to us over those that we do not know. Still, he makes an argument about the flaw in this notion in an example about slavery. Shafer-Landau argues that, since utilitarianism considers everyone's well-being equally, if enough people in a society held onto the idea of slavery it could be “required” that the society continue the practice. It seems that, upon weighing all of the harms to slaves and benefits to slave owners with one another, if more benefits seem to come from the act, then the act is required by utilitarianism. This shows a major drawback to the theory as a whole.

The Obligation to Education in a Consequentialist Lens

In a recent Oklahoma legislature meeting, Republican representative Mike Reynolds asserted "they have no responsibility to ensure access to college education."

The discussion arose in the midst of the ongoing debate of whether or not to expand Oklahoma's Promise. This program provides funding to low-income students for their secondary education. One side believes that it is the state government's job to ensure bright, qualified students get a chance to receive higher education. According to Democratic representative James Lockhart, these students are imperative to help because of their potential future value; it is this type of student "that will cure cancer, create the next big invention or possibly become a great leader."

Reynolds', on the opposition, denied society's responsibility to fund any one else's education and, regardless of how bright a student may be, "their potential benefit is irrelevant." Just to clarify though, Reynolds is not opposed to funding public K-12 education. His support towards providing financial assistance simply stops at the 12th grade level.

Emotions as Cognitive Functions: The Similar Views of Meeker and Jaggar

On Wednesday, April 3, Ms. Joy Meeker came to DePauw University to give a lecture entitled Facing Discomfort: Engaging Justice. After listening to Ms. Meeker’s stance on emotion as it relates to conflict in our society, many parallels could be derived from our study of Alison Jaggar’s Love and Knowledge: Emotion in Feminist Epistemology. Much like Jaggar, Meeker disagrees with the positivist view that emotions are an uncontrollable venting of feelings; rather, she believes that emotions should be considered and cognitively processed because it is an unavoidable factor in our thinking processes. Both Meeker and Jaggar agree that it is dangerous to rely on the social constructs that our society has created in regards to emotion. Meeker then proceeds to look at emotion through a positional lens and relate it to a more complete understanding of other viewpoints throughout the conflict resolution process.

Utilitarianism: The Problem With the View of Actual Results

In The Fundamentals of Ethics, Russ Shafer-Landau spends a chapter focusing on act utilitarianism, a version of consequentialism. In the chapter he discusses the structure of act utilitarianism and its principle of maximizing goodness. He also provides some of the attractions of Utilitarianism and the scope of Utilitarianism. What I plan to focus on however is the Utilitarian view of moral knowledge and the problem of using expected results over actual results when committing moral actions.

Jody Williams and International Ethics

Jody Williams, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient for her work to stop the use of landmines recently spoke at DePauw to discuss her international humanitarian work. I was lucky enough to be able to attend her lecture as well as participate my Humanitarian Intervention class where she was present to tell us her story as well as some Q&A.
After hearing her speak I remain fascinated by her rise to activism. She describes the primary driving force in activism as “righteous indignation” or the discovery of a rightful emotional disgust, not quite broaching on the ventings of “anger”, that she felt at a young age towards the injustices that her deaf brother experienced at school as a child. She recalls this feeling of righteous indignation as her