Letters to the Editor
Xanthro
Published Letters: 522 Editor's Choice: 47
-
Singer does link Holocaust and animals
[Read the article: The practical ethicist]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"But the worst is the letter written by Xema Gold. A letter that inexplicably received an Editor's Choice star, further eroding the value of that designation."
"Singer implies that the (suffering) of the Jewish people during the Holocaust is equal to the suffering of slaughtered animals."
"Not only does he not imply this, he explicitly states the opposite. He explicitly states that it is not equal.
Second to last question from the bottom of page two of the article. Look:"
"And we ignore that suffering, just as the Nazis ignored the suffering of the Jews, or the slave traders ignored the suffering of the Africans. I'm not saying that it's the same sort of suffering. I am not saying that factory farming is the same as the Holocaust or the slave trade..."
"It's not that hard. All you have to do is read and think at the same time."
Read it closely. Singer says, "I'm not saying that it's the same sort of suffering." That's a very passive way of stating something, and it's not a denial.
Saying, "I'm not saying that it's the same sort of suffering." is not the same as saying "They are not the same sort of suffering." The latter is a denial, the former is an obscuration as he's not saying they aren't equal. He lets the reader decide whether they are equal or not.
That's why Xema Gold wrote implied.
Why contrast the Holocaust and animal welfare unless it is to link them and at some level imply they are equal? There is no other logical reason, because even Singer understands that this is beyond the pale, he attempts to cover himself with the whole "I'm not saying that it's the same sort of suffering."
If Singer didn't believe there are the same he wouldn't have compared them.
-
Yes, Hitler was a vegetarian
[Read the article: The practical ethicist]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No it doesn't have anything to do with animal ethics.
"Hitler was not a vegetarian. That was a piece of propaganda invented by the Allies to discredit Hitler."
So, Goebbels was an Allied progandist? It's clear from his dairies, it's clear from others in Hitler's circle that Hitler was a vegetarian. It's not even disputed except by certain extreme vegetarians like Rynn Berry who somehow feel their movement will be tainted because Hitler didn't eat meat.
"It's also funny that this same piece of propaganda is now being used to attack vegetarianism."
That's the only reason some vegetarians are now making the absurb claim that Hitler wasn't a vegetarian.
Hitlers's dietary habits have no more bearing than the fact that he loved dogs.
It's only used an an attack to watch the idiotic extremes certain proponents of vegerarianism will go to. Rational people quickly dismiss the argument as drivel.
-
Reply to M. A. Szkolka
[Read the article: The practical ethicist]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I cannot reply with extensive quotation as this would violate the 1,000 word limit, so if I miss something important, please forgive me and point it out.
Asking why I would want to alleviate hunger in people I don't know, and doing good for others are not mutually exclusive.
It doesn't do anyone who is hungry any good to simply alleviate his or her hunger, because it does not address the underlying reason for that hunger.
Moral values are not genetic, or if they are can be overriden by cultural norms. Norms that others may find reprehensible, such as Honor killings of female relatives. Such constants do not exist is human behavior. Killing is not always bad, loyalty is not always good. Kindness can be weakness and generosity foolishness.
One thing that humans have is altruism. We are not vampire bats that or primates that are limited to reciprocal altruism. We can and do help those when it brings no direct benefit to ourselves. It's a noble trait, but how it is implemented differs greatly among cultures.
Ethical behavior does not require that I seek out unknown people to help. In fact, I'd argue that this represents unethical behavior, because it is taking on a parental or colonial role, a role not granted to us.
If I see a person in trouble, I'll help, because that person is no longer unknown to me. I don't do so because I expect to be rewarded or receive aid from others later. I do it for essentially selfish reasons, because it makes me feel better about myself.
Where I draw the line is assuming that I am somehow superior to others and need to save them from themselves. It is not my duty, nor the duty of countries to try and save everyone from hunger or suffering. How much hunger was there in Africa before colonization? Less than there is now. Why, because people wanted to alleviate hunger and bring God to the heathens and enlightenment to those in darkness, and other equally silly reasons. It did and does Africa no good.