Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
What do people think about Singer's stance of the local food question? I've heard a lot of conflicting information on this point (Bill McKibbon comes to mind), and I think rice is a particularly loaded example (since it doesn't grow just anywhere), but what about something like bell peppers? Are organic peppers from Chile really less carbon loaded than local (and presumably in season) conventional peppers? Is there an inherent benefit of keeping one's dollars (and pennies) local? Or is it really "better" to give two cents to a farmer in Kenya? What do we mean by "better" here - impact? most deserving? most in need? I'm confused.
And to that end, should we be eating rice - even organic, fair trade rice - at all if it can't grow where we live, or be eating fresh peppers in New York in February? Is Singer really talking about sustainability? What kind of food system is he imagining here? I might have to read his book and find out.
Also, is anyone out there going vegan in order to shrink his/her carbon footprint?
With an open heart - Tony T.
Anyone going vegan?
I might add - I'm not.
Therefore, Pragmatism is the best course of action.
That means we take some good ideas from Dr. Singer and we do the best we can. And we don't lord our choices over our fellow humans, because this is not some kind of contest.
P.S.--But when our ethics get us to the place where we think we can justify beastiality, it is time to get us a new set of ethics. Because that right there is just fucked up.
Pray tell, how does one become a "professional ethicist"?
Is that the same school one attends to become a "professional astrologer"? Or to get Cary Tennis's job?
Broudy compares Singer's arguments to the kind of "freshman logic" that college students are so determined to hold onto. That sounds about right to me. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind.
Singer may eschew cows raised on chiken offal, but he's still mostly full of shit.
First, Peter Singer is a huge hypocrite.
The whole notion that it is unjust for some to live well while others starve, but that the former can buy off his personal guilt by donating 20% of his income is beyond belief.
If one really believes that we have a moral obligation to help others in the manner professed, then donate 80%.
It's like these inane socialist stating all work is equal in value while making 3 times the money of their assistances. It's absurd on its surface and get no better with depth.
Second, buy food from third world countries is the worst thing you can do for them, unless you are trying to enforce perputual servitude. A nation cannot move from a third world economy without gettin its birth rate under control. That does not happen when farming is the main source of income, because more childern means more workers and this means more potential income for the parents. The childern however will likely be as poor if not poorer than the parents. It's a vicious cycle than will not end as long as farming is the key employment sector.
As someone who has lived on a farm, I'll let you in on a little fact. Chickens are disgusting creatures that will eat anything, including like chickens. One of the reasons chickens are caged is because they always kill and eat weaker chickens. Chicken nature is cruel if you apply human standards, which is what Peter Singer is trying to do.
Singer, in the end, is a hypocrite. I don't mean this in a mean-spirited, name-calling way, but in the sense that he doesn't practice what he preaches. To wit: he bases his ethics on Utilitarianism, i.e., the greatest good for the greatest number, but his ethical framework cannot answer the fundamental begging-of-the-question: Why should we do good to others?
Yes, I know the pat answer: we should do good to others so that they will do good to us. But here's a question that Singer and other Utilitarians can't answer: If by force or by guile I can steal everything he owns and kill him and get away with it, why shouldn't I? Moreover, on what basis would he (and others) condemn my actions? It's one thing to say, "I shall not steal and murder." It's another thing to say, "You should not steal and murder." Indeed, the word should in Utilitarianism is not a moral word; it is a practical word. If I can state a more practical reason why I should steal and murder than he can state why I shouldn't, then my argument wins.
More questions for Singer et al.: What are rights? From where do they derive? (Remember, the father of Utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham, called the concept of rights "nonsense on stilts." Bentham at least saw all the way through to the logical conclusion of his ethical theory.)
My point is that in the end, Utilitarianism founders on its own assumptions.
My father was a farmer and rancher who worked his own place for most of his 78 years, until he was taken from us by a drunk driver. We raised cattle for our own use and for sale. He never mistreated an animal in his life. He loathed veal and thought the concept vile.
We were deeply vested in the concept of life and death on a family farm. It was our livelihood and our food. We handled the slaughtering and meatpacking ourselves; not only coming to grips with what really happens before a sirloin lands on your plate, but taking responsibility for how it gets there. Doing this, we were much closer to the cycle of eat and get eaten than Mr. Singer could ever conceive.
Singer's "boy equals rat" logic is as ludicrous as his nazi/jew, slaughterhouse/animal twaddle. I grew up around cattle, and friends--they ain't us.
My father was a decent, ethical, and honorable man whose ethical stewardship of his herd is unquestioned. Singer is just a fuzzy nutjob who would cheerily let the human race die if it would save a single rat.
By the way, I plan to eat a New York strip the size of a Buick tomorrow, in his honor. With some organic string beans, of course. Cheers.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
