....In the final chapter of the book Mr. Singer calls the "lesser of two evils" argument. A pure idealist like time took 250 pages or so to bring down his noble ideas and impeccable morality to such an argument. Still how do we classify one evil lesser than the other? Aren't all living organisms equally important to the environment? Aren't all products of the same process (God for some, evolution hopefully for most of us)? "Lesser of two evils..." from whose perspective? Certainly not the virus's, or the carrot's. Mr. Singer suggests to care about "cute and cuddly" organisms but not all. He even arbitrarily classifies plants and microorganisms as less important than animals for no apparent reason what so ever. This to use his own words is an indefensible evolutionary bigotry and drives the nail to the wall about his argument having little rational basis.
Instead I propose to be fair to all living creatures. The results of our actions aren't all we should take into account (conseuqentialism) when deciding our actions. This is the easy way out and Mr. Singer having spent all those pages taking about ethics and morality should not want it. To be fair we should make sure that in our everyday lives we do not take out of their natural tendencies ANY living organism....only what am I saying that is practically impossible. It is because we are into the struggle for survival. I won't go out of my way to harm another living soul, and I will try to be as responsible and aware of my surroundings and how my actions impact the environment and its inhabitants. I will not however pretend I am the savior amongst the wolves, the defender of the weak. Some have to die for others to live and the hardest I will try to preserve life will be when it comes to the life of a fellow human and not that of an animal. Be kind out of superiority not out of guilt.
I want to focus now on another part of the book. Mr. Singer talks about people who claim that hunting is a natural human need and that it has always been in our genes so to speak. The author finds no need for hunting though on the grounds that times have changed and meat is found in plethora in the frozen section of any supermarket. Food is no longer sparse thus no need for hunting to feed ourselves. One obvious response is that hunting is the least of the animals worries. In an age when natural predators are not as many as they used to be (wolves are extremely low in Europe. The result: lambs and goats in huge numbers destroy and consume enormous amount of, at least my countries, small trees. The absence of wolves and foxes has led to considerable changes in Greece's landscape as a result of assiduous feeding of the herbivores) so humans, that represent another predator, can hunt without disturbing at all the food chain (provided of course the prey is not endangered species and the numbers killed are closely monitored). I have personally never met a hunter (Greece has plenty of amateur hunters so they are the ones I have associated with) who killed in excessive amounts, or who despised animals. Neither are all fishermen into mass fishing. I suppose Mr. Singer would discourage a father from introducing his son to the murderous sport of fishing, even if that is their time together for bonding. I do not want to seem a proponent of hunting, which I personally have never tried and never would, but attacking the claim that "hunting is a natural for humans" is preposterous.
Interestingly enough Mr. Singer himself refutes his own point (about hunting) in the same book. He finds it cruel to put animals in zoos for our own amusement. We all agree that this is true (I hope). He then goes on to point how perverse it is to force feed a lion prey already killed. But a lion is a natural hunter, how can it eat dead prey? It doesn't occur to Mr. Singer that the same might hold true for at least some human societies. We also are hunters. You don't have to hunt only animals. The human instinct of hunting and preying is evident in other aspects of our lives as well.
Finally Mr. Singer claims we do not live in a hierarchical society. Obviously he hasn't notice Manhattan. The author moreover praises utilitarian ideas such as those of Jeremy Bentham's and J.S. Mill's. What is the basis of utilitarianism? The general good is always and ever above the individual good. Equally passionate is Singer to support that humans and animals may not be the same, but have equal rights in a happy life. Now, here is what I think. I think that chickens far out-number humans on this planet. Chickens and humans have both a right to a free life. So the greater good is served by keeping the chickens alive and feeding humans to them...how does that sound. If horrific, ludicrous and paranoid are your choice of words then you will agree with me and against Mr. Singer.
-John
I want to focus now on another part of the book. Mr. Singer talks about people who claim that hunting is a natural human need and that it has always been in our genes so to speak. The author finds no need for hunting though on the grounds that times have changed and meat is found in plethora in the frozen section of any supermarket. Food is no longer sparse thus no need for hunting to feed ourselves. One obvious response is that hunting is the least of the animals worries. In an age when natural predators are not as many as they used to be (wolves are extremely low in Europe. The result: lambs and goats in huge numbers destroy and consume enormous amount of, at least my countries, small trees. The absence of wolves and foxes has led to considerable changes in Greece's landscape as a result of assiduous feeding of the herbivores) so humans, that represent another predator, can hunt without disturbing at all the food chain (provided of course the prey is not endangered species and the numbers killed are closely monitored). I have personally never met a hunter (Greece has plenty of amateur hunters so they are the ones I have associated with) who killed in excessive amounts, or who despised animals. Neither are all fishermen into mass fishing. I suppose Mr. Singer would discourage a father from introducing his son to the murderous sport of fishing, even if that is their time together for bonding. I do not want to seem a proponent of hunting, which I personally have never tried and never would, but attacking the claim that "hunting is a natural for humans" is preposterous.
Interestingly enough Mr. Singer himself refutes his own point (about hunting) in the same book. He finds it cruel to put animals in zoos for our own amusement. We all agree that this is true (I hope). He then goes on to point how perverse it is to force feed a lion prey already killed. But a lion is a natural hunter, how can it eat dead prey? It doesn't occur to Mr. Singer that the same might hold true for at least some human societies. We also are hunters. You don't have to hunt only animals. The human instinct of hunting and preying is evident in other aspects of our lives as well.
Finally Mr. Singer claims we do not live in a hierarchical society. Obviously he hasn't notice Manhattan. The author moreover praises utilitarian ideas such as those of Jeremy Bentham's and J.S. Mill's. What is the basis of utilitarianism? The general good is always and ever above the individual good. Equally passionate is Singer to support that humans and animals may not be the same, but have equal rights in a happy life. Now, here is what I think. I think that chickens far out-number humans on this planet. Chickens and humans have both a right to a free life. So the greater good is served by keeping the chickens alive and feeding humans to them...how does that sound. If horrific, ludicrous and paranoid are your choice of words then you will agree with me and against Mr. Singer.
-John
