: : That is a fine question, and it requires a thoughtful answer. I'd rather be able to discuss it with you face to face, rather than over a time delayed chat board which hinders intellectual give and take. Let me say briefly, however, that my moral worldview may have been influenced by things such as codified law and majority opinion (this no doubt affects all of us), and perhaps by the influence of major religions (I myself am not religious). The short answer is, it's what I feel is correct. But as I'm sure you can appreciate, I feel the way I do for very complex reasons, which would take time to both ponder, and then explain. Again, it's hard to do that over a forum like this.: : My gut instinct when I see an animal in distress is to help it; I've felt that way for as long as I can. Ergo, I believe the human race would enoble itself if it treated all animals with kindness, even when doing so would deny us certain benefits, as in medical benefits. In fact, it is that sacrifice which represents the n
Stuart,
I have only a slim education in philosophy, so I can't discuss morality in formal terms. Despite this, I'll try to explain my take on it:
You wrote, " ...a moral judgement is out of line unless the basis of that moral code is something substantially larger than a personal opinion."
By this, I'm guessing you mean that a moral judgment must reflect a truth. It must have a rational basis, based on a scale which produces greater benefits than costs. However (assuming I interpreted you correctly) isn't one supposed to do what is "right" despite the costs?
Let's take human slavery, for example. Could a strong nation not continue to enslave a weak nation forever? If so, what reason would the strong have for abandoning slavery, other than the mysterious notion that harming others is somehow wrong?
I can picture you sitting there, thinking of all the actual harms to teh strong nation which slavery might produce, such as arrogance or brutality. But what if the strong nation gained so much more from human slavery than it suffered in negative effects? Would the moral imperative of abandoning slavery cease to be? I would certainly hope not.
I believe that ultimately -- and from what source, I do not know (empathy?) -- there is an inherent sense of right and wrong in all of us, and that sense of right or wrong tells us that, among other things, hurting those which can suffer, be they man or beast, is wrong. Christ said it well with his golden rule: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Yes, I know (or assume) he was talking about people, but I believe the principle extends to all living creatures, particularly those with the capacity to suffer. Hence, my stance on animal rights (a term I do not like, by the way. "Rights" leads to much confusion. I prefer "animal liberation," because in my view, people enslave animals, and treat them accordingly, i.e., as property to be used any way we wish).
I'd be lying if I didn't admit to ambivalence in the area of medical testing, and on some days I see it as a necessary evil. However, that is the only human use of animals where I am torn. I cannot support you when you speak of testing on animals, and eating them, in the same sentence. While it is perhaps true that we cannot advance medical science without animal testing, it is absolutely true that we can survive, and even thrive, on a vegetarian diet. We do have a choice of whether or not to kill and eat animals in order to live, and here, I simply do not see how one can successfully argue that given this choice, it is still acceptable to take their lives simply for the pleasure of tasting their flesh on our tongues.
One last point: if you still insist on moral judgements coming from some objective cost-benefit analysis, in the case of vegetarianism there are powerful environmental, human health, and humanitarian arguments for vegetarianism. I could describe them, but McSpotlight has done the heavy lifting and outlined them elsewhere on this website, and other veggie websites like the Farm Sanctuary site also cover these topics.
Sincerely,
MDG
None.
