Whether 'tis nobler in the mind...
At school, some of my friends were vegan or vegetarian for a solid moral reason: they could not condone the conditions under which the agro-industry functions and thrives. It seems to them to be unsustainable and/or unconscionable to treat animals and the land in such a way. If you object morally to a system, at the very least you are obligated to abstain from it. Even if the system will not be appreciably hindered or reformed by your refusal to participate, you would be a hypocrite if you benefited from a system you find to be morally objectionable.
Unfortunately, agro-industry is but the tip of the iceberg. I'll not go on a tirade on the evils of the global economic status quo, because I think those are generally poorly informed, myopic, and utopian. What I mean to talk about is not human activity, but life itself. The cruelty of the agro-industrial complex is a reflection of the cruelty of the world, of its meanness, arbitrariness, and remorselessness. When we are told that life is unfair, we should not merely be thinking about the capricious nature of man, we should be thinking about how this world fundamentally treats plants, animals, and humans with heartless indifference. There are no such things as human rights. That is not a philosophical statement, it is empirical. A right is a guarantee, and it is clear that if we intend to guarantee human rights, it will require us first to fully conquer this planet, to overcome its staggeringly violent will. No, the world does not cry when we commit genocide. It is envious that it did not get around to killing those people off first.
Pity not the baby seal, clubbed to death by Russians. That baby seal has one of the best deaths afforded by nature, quick and relatively painless.
The only moral option is to resign from this system in protest.
PS - No, I'm not actually considering suicide, please don't call/email me in a panic.
Unfortunately, agro-industry is but the tip of the iceberg. I'll not go on a tirade on the evils of the global economic status quo, because I think those are generally poorly informed, myopic, and utopian. What I mean to talk about is not human activity, but life itself. The cruelty of the agro-industrial complex is a reflection of the cruelty of the world, of its meanness, arbitrariness, and remorselessness. When we are told that life is unfair, we should not merely be thinking about the capricious nature of man, we should be thinking about how this world fundamentally treats plants, animals, and humans with heartless indifference. There are no such things as human rights. That is not a philosophical statement, it is empirical. A right is a guarantee, and it is clear that if we intend to guarantee human rights, it will require us first to fully conquer this planet, to overcome its staggeringly violent will. No, the world does not cry when we commit genocide. It is envious that it did not get around to killing those people off first.
Pity not the baby seal, clubbed to death by Russians. That baby seal has one of the best deaths afforded by nature, quick and relatively painless.
The only moral option is to resign from this system in protest.
PS - No, I'm not actually considering suicide, please don't call/email me in a panic.
posted by Nate at 10:30 PM
4 Comments:
Although I have come to a similar conclusion - that nature doesn't care whether or not we suffer, nor is there a higher power or conciousness that wishes our happiness - I think you left something out of your post. Humans may be simply an accident of evolution, but the fact is that we are the only animal on earth (so far as we are aware) whose brains became so large and complex that we gained conciousness of the self and the capacity for morality. As I see it, no natural power or other living thing has the obligation to act within any morality because nothing else on Earth can conceive of morality. Moreover, it's important to much of life on earth that it not be concerned about the suffering of other beings, because their survival depends upon killing other animals in frankly cruel and gruesome ways.
I would argue that the human capacity for morality obligates us to draw moral judgements and to act upon them insofar as it doesn't hinder our own survival. We should not make moral judgements upon nature for causing suffering, but that doesn't excuse us.
On a related note, I recently read Richard Leakey's Origins Reconsidered, in which he delves into the question of how and why humans developed conciousness, and I highly recommend it.
I'm not as confident as you are, Abby, in the human capacity for moral judgement. I think that we still every day make innumerable morally unjustifiable decisions so that we can continue to function somewhat healthily. We refuse to think about the thousands of children dying for want of $4 medicine when we go out for a few beers, for example. A strict and accurate morality, I think, would see that as wrong.
What may be worse, though, is that the best possible outcome may come through such immoral choices. I am at this point very sceptical of Western aid packages. (Having just come from the Dutch embassy where we negotiated receiving mid-six digits over the next three years from them, this is a funny thing for me to say.) For all our interference—and I don't mean IMF conditional loans dictating financial policies, which I think are generally justifiable, but rather the unconditional grants espoused by those most sympathetic to the poor which artificially prop up inept governments—Africa is little better off than it was 50 years ago. The moral decision might be to send your $4 to buy medicine for the dying child, but the right decision might be to let Africa alone. (Or, an even better option: buy things made in Africa, and use them yourself, knowing that you’re doing a lot more good than buying something made in America and sending it to be enjoyed by Africans.)
What are the implications of a world where trying to enforce human rights perpetuates stagnation and suffering? Where trying to stop a war turns it into a multi-generational conflict? It seems to me like the best intentions of the righteous are overcome either by the efforts of the world’s more plentiful opportunists or by their own misjudgement.
Capitalism is a system which is founded on the principle that everyone (not just a few people, as is it is often misunderstood) is best off if they are allowed to fend for themselves. It's essentially an amoral, results-based system, and although it needs a bit of tweaking to make sure everyone can fend for themselves, it's still the best system we've ever found.
So I feel like in some ways the system is gamed, so that your morality fools you into doing harm, and amorality (if not immorality) is the key to doing good. That is pretty damn perverse, and, well, I stand by my earlier statement: we should all resign in protest.
"Capitalism is a system which is founded on the principle that everyone (not just a few people, as is it is often misunderstood) is best off if they are allowed to fend for themselves. It's essentially an amoral, results-based system, and although it needs a bit of tweaking to make sure everyone can fend for themselves, it's still the best system we've ever found."
I disagree. I think that some form of communism is - in theory - the best solution. In practice, however, it's shown itself to be unworkable on a large scale. I think some form of socialism would be an improvement over capitalism, though.
The capitalist thing was an empirical statement, not a theoretical one. In theory, after all, the Garden of Eden is best. I don't think there has ever been an example of state-led economic development, although maybe some economists would point to post-WWII reconstruction of Europe. In general, though, people have proven better at taking care of themselves than the state is. Companies give people jobs, and the best way to make workers better off is not to try to control or restrain the companies, which limits jobs, but, on the contrary, to try to promote more and more companies, so that there are more jobs, so that workers can make choices and companies have to offer better incentives. France's unemployment has been twice that of the US for over a decade, and having 10% of your workers unable to find a job is not social justice.
I do think that the state needs to guarantee everybody a good education, so they have the basic tools to fend for themselves. And since there are a few people (but a very few people) who can't fend for themselves, the state should help those. There are also better ways to achieve desired outcomes, like income subsidies instead of minimum wages, which don't try to overturn the laws of economics through coercion.
Post a Comment
<< Home