On September 19, 2010, Rutgers and Princeton philosophy professor Jeff McMahan led human reason over the giddy brink of madness: In an op-ed for the Times, McMahan takes Utilitarianism and animal-rights ethics to their proper, logical outcome. His starting point is simple enough: Since there is no God, and no natural order that designates man as its highest member, of course we have no right to inflict any suffering on animals by eating them.
This much Princeton's Pete Singer proved long ago, in Animal Liberation. Singer has since gone further, and shown that any sharp distinction in kind between man and animal amounts to the prejudice of "speciesism," which is just a form of racism practiced on behalf of . . . the human race.
. . . But McMahan goes even further: While there is no highest good in the world, we can identify absolute evil -- suffering. There being no God, there is nothing and no one that can render suffering meaningful or redemptive. It's the metaphysical equivalent of kiddie porn, and it's our duty to stomp it out. Not just among the human race (that would be racist), but also among the animals. Sure, that means that we should stop eating animals. But McMahan is too stern a logician to stop at such halfway measures; we must also, he argues, stop animals from eating each other.That's right -- we have to take "Nature red in tooth and claw" and turn its beasts into ... loopy Princeton philosophy professors. Or something. Really? You want to try and tell a ravening great white shark that it should give up eating seals and start eating salads? You go first, professor! Even more crazily, McMahan's editorial all but advocates that his morally superior philosophical confreres should agree to the willful extermination of carnivorous species. Um ... what? All right, this is so patently absurd in so many ways that I don't even know where to begin. For starters, it betrays a total blithering ignorance about ecosystems, biodiversity, and the consequences of messing with predator/prey relationships. (Plus -- worryingly -- once again here we go with people claiming high and abstract moral-philosophical reasons for advocating ... um ... extermination. Look, professor, what have those great whites and grizzlies and wolves ever done to YOU that you should so passionately call for them to be destroyed in the name of ... what, moral cleansing? So in order to be "virtuous" in your world, we have to first ... wipe out the unvirtuous? You'll excuse me if this entire topic is beginning to creep me out. Why do so many loopily passionate fanatics of "virtue," however they define it, seem so comfortable with the idea of bloodshed? UGH!)
UPDATE: Here's what I think.
5 comments:
Not a bad reductio ad absurdum argument against vegetarianism, I suppose.
This apparently being a serious article, however, I have to say it supports my view that I would love the field of philosophy except for all of the philosophers.
Also, the first bit of the blockquoted link under "an op-ed for the" leads to a 404.
Sorry, I meant to comment on the silly last bit of the article:
I am therefore inclined to embrace the heretical conclusion that we have reason to desire the extinction of all carnivorous species, and I await the usual fate of heretics when this article is opened to comment.
The usual fate for heretics in the US is, what, adoration from the intelligentsia? Being called an idiot by the bourgeoisie? Goodness, what courage it must have taken to publish this.
OK, fixed the broken link!
As for the "dangerous" heresy ... Oh, so dangerous! We're burning heretics in the town square every Saturday afternoon, ha!
Indeed, I always bring marshmallows and sticks for the children.
Love your pimped out ride, BTW.
Well. I believe that we are morally oblgated to eliminate herbivores, and increase as much as possible the amount of animal on animal violence, because being eaten by something larger generally creates less suffering than dying slowly of injury or illness.
Post a Comment