The Table Comes First Adam Gopnik pg 144
OK, I have sorta heard this argument before but not stated so well. I dont agree on the grounds that other species are not humans and we have as our first responsibility our own best interests, and that species kill eat other species all the time, why should we consider this a problem? Eating our own babies is a whole nother thing entirely, that is not relevant here, as this is about eating other species. This also invalidates the catchy emotionally charged NAZI argument, though we do have to not that I have not ever heard that the NAZI's claimed that this was the reason they did the showers, my information is that they did it to make the job easier, those who dont know that they are going to die are easier to manage which is why they did it and I never heard them claim otherwise so this needs to be documented.
I am interested if anyone is convinced by the argument that Gopnik lays out, or can expand upon it.
Note: He does not claim that he believes it, he claims to be restating the argument that others have given him.
tyvm
I'd say morality doesn't come into it. We kill and eat animals because we can. If a human is immoral for killing an animal, a snake is immoral for eating a mouse. Is a frog immoral for eating a cricket? Morality isn't involved, the frog isn't morally justified in eating the cricket. It can so it does. Same with humans and cattle. We can so we do. We don't eat our children because we don't want to. They have more value not being eaten same with chimps and dogs.
Refering to slaughter as murder is hyperbolic appeal to emotion that vegans and the like tend to use, and it's incorrect. Murder is the unlawful killing another human needlessly or without cause.
If an animal is bred and raised for the sole purpose of eating it's flesh, that isn't needless killing, the rancher needed to kill it to get the return on his investment birthing it, raising it, keeping it healthy and feeding it. The rancher had to sell the meat to feed his family, keep a home and pay his taxes.
Further if it wasn't for the demand of its meat the animal wouldn't even exist. It existed for the sole purpose of being killed and eaten.
So slaughtering an animal isn't needless or without cause.
There is lawful slaying of animals. So long as regulations are adhered to, slaugter is perfectly legal.
If however I killed my naighbors dog because I don't like my naighbor, that would be needless and unlawful. That could be called murder of we forget the human aspect of it.
So in short, not in the least. Gopnik's argument exists on the supposition that his idea of morality is the objective form of it. I simply don't share it. It doesn't mean it's wrong. It's just another subjective position on morality. I don't object to birth control, thus I don't share catholic morality. I eat shellfish thus I don't share jewish morality. I don't believe Joseph smith is a prophet, thus I don't share Mormon morality.
:2wave:
