Moral virtue vs. moral obligation, and other arguments that have me stumped

[llyn]

For the past week or so I've been debating a big-ish cheese in the skeptical community on the ethical basis for a vegan lifestyle. While he is kind of an ass, he's intellectually honest and a very, very experienced debater...which is why I am having trouble and would like to crowdsource a few responses. :thumbsup:

The major reason I went vegan is because I did not see any compelling reason to consume animal products in the face of the overwhelming suffering their production inevitably causes. He had several responses to this and other similar arguments I made

1) In no other area do we go about justifying every freedom or right we have; rather, we start with unlimited freedom and we have to justify the restrictions we place on it (iow, the omnivore does not have to justify eating meat, the vegan must make a compelling case for why he does not have that right--we have the burden of proof).

2) Humans do not have the same moral obligations to animals that they have to other humans. Since animals do not have moral obligations to us, we do not have moral obligations towards them; therefore he is not compelled to restrict his consumption of animal products because he is not morally obligated to consider the effect their production has on animals. (This is an argument I've never come across before. The only response I can think of right now "why the hell not, jerk?". I believe this is the basis for all his arguments; please help me out with this one in particular!).

3) I made the argument that, since we do not have to consume animal products for sustenance (we can get the nutrients elsewhere, and are better for it), we continue to consume them for pleasure (because they taste good) and convenience (they're everywhere!). I argued that this was akin to killing animals for sexual pleasure, which the vast majority of people would find morally repulsive.

He responded that, while it would be morally virtuous of me not to kill them, I was not morally obligated to, By implication, I think, he has ceded that a vegan lifestyle has a legitimate moral basis--but maintained that it is not morally compelling, for reason #2.

Intuitively, I'm convinced that a vegan lifestyle is morally compelling--its just a matter of how to articulate that conviction into a compelling argument. Any help from people who have heard these arguments, or could point me towards helpful resources, is much appreciated!

Thanks,

Llyn

[FaerieSuzy]

In regards to point 2, could you possibly argue that to some degree we ARE morally obligated towards SOME animals, (most people in the Western World feel obliged to treat dogs and cats a certain way) and if someone here in the UK were to kill a cat or dog for either food or pleasure (ie: like shooting ducks for fun) then they would face prosecution. Since this is the social norm in this country I would argue that people DO feel morally obliged to treat cats and dogs in a humane way (I know it isn't always the case sadly) and thus DO have a moral obligation to certain species of animals, depending on which country you live in. Perhaps then his argument is more about moral speciesism, depending on culture?

Plus, although he states that humans have different moral responsibilities to other humans than they do to other animals it depends in what situation he is thinking. If I had a starving child in my arms and cow's milk was the only food source available to save its life, then of course I would feed it cow's milk. However, in a society where food is readily available, we have an alternative, and as a compassionate human being, I feel we are morally obliged to look after said starving child with other sources that are available to us whilst avoiding exploitation. 200 years ago, people would have argued that white people have different moral obligations towards other white people, than they do to black, asian etc. Now it is socially unacceptable to show preference to someone because of their race. Just because we are a world of speciesists doesn't mean our morals will stay the same.

(Sorry if this makes no sense, I'm finding it tricky to put this into words)

[harpy]

Ask him why we only have moral obligations to those that have moral obligations to us. That'll keep him busy for a little while, if nothing else! Obviously, we don't agree with him there.

[dannytaco]

For #2, read Peter Carruthers "The Animals Issue." It's an incredibly well-argued philosophy book where he comes to some really awful conclusions using that argument. He argues that the best basis for an ethical theory is the contractualist account put forward by Rawls (who used Kant's talk of rights and duties as his foundation). The gist of it is that morality is constructed- for human involvment in human community- by rational agents (which excludes animals); animals therefore have no place in our moral community. Whether someone uses utilitarian theory or a rights/contract-based theory, I have found that each can be used for or against the vegan view of how nonhuman animals should be treated. For instance, you'll see Peter Carruthers and Gary Francione both offering rights jargon to defend opposite positions, both doing so quite well. The solution? Evolve your philosophy to get out of those stuffy old classical systems! If you want more consciousness-raising arguments for veganism that don't just discuss the harm principle get into personhood debates concerning rights, read up on 'deep ecology' and 'ecofeminism.' If you want to understand the entire range of philosophical underpinnings for animal liberation (yet still find them readable and easily accessible), read 'The Moral Menagerie: Philosophy and Animal Rights' by Marc Fellenz, and 'The Sexual Politics of Meat' by Carol Adams.

[llyn]

Good point harpy; this must be his fundamental objection, that we are not morally obligated to take the welfare of animals into account when determining our actions because animals have no moral obligations towards us.

This doesn't make much sense to me. Certain humans (infants, young children, people with development disabilities, brain damage, or people in a persistent vegetative state) who have no moral obligations or responsibilities towards me--do I then have free license to exploit or abuse them as I see fit? Would it be only "morally virtuous" to refrain from doing so?

[llyn]

200 years ago, people would have argued that white people have different moral obligations towards other white people, than they do to black, asian etc.

Agreed; if I have moral obligations to humans that do not have moral obligations to me, what then becomes the criteria for determining whose welfare I am morally obligated to consider? I would say any individual who would consciously suffer as a result of my actions.

[harpy]

I seem to remember from undergraduate days that there were about as many views on where "moral obligations" come from as there were moral philosophers, and not all of the explanations, by any means, were based on reciprocity. If you look up "moral obligation" on Wikipedia it will point you to a cross-section. Good luck :)

[splodge]

I hate "master debators" like him. They are dons of sophisty and lack genuine thinking ability.

We don't HAVE to do anything. We don't have to abstain from raping and killing people. We just do, because the entire human race is bound by the innate rule of "do unto others as you would to yourself". Therefore, why NOT go vegan? Veganism is the standard, as nature intended, and to deviate from that standard is to force your mind and body to run a gauntlet to make it okay.

And, unless he thinks waste, environmental destruction and world hunger are not problems we are obliged to ease (or, just not bloody cause in the first place!) I conclude that he doesn't know what he's going on about :)

[Kaha]

His arguments are why I hate philosophy as just self-indulgent navel-gazing. To quote Karl Marx, 'Philosophers only interpret the world- the point is to change it'.
Non-human animals don't have a moral obligation to us because they happen to have not (in the main) evolved a consciousness which allows an understanding of the concept. The same could be said for some severely mentally disabled people- so is it ok for us to exploit them, and children too young to understand, or the dementia-suffering elderly? If not, then the justification can only be speciesist, which allows and promotes the suffering, pain and trauma of animals for our pleasure.
Gggrrrr!

[whalespace]

How about

nobody is obliged, feel free to be lovely

?

[fiver]

1) In no other area do we go about justifying every freedom or right we have; rather, we start with unlimited freedom and we have to justify the restrictions we place on it (iow, the omnivore does not have to justify eating meat, the vegan must make a compelling case for why he does not have that right--we have the burden of proof).


He must justify the restrictions that his actions impose on others. His actions are impacting on the freedom of animals. Abstaining from using animal products (and the advocation of veganism) does not place these same restrictions on them. Inflicting harm can only be justified by appeals to valid moral principles, so the burden of proof is very much on him to explain why he thinks that his desires are rights.

You could ask him if he thinks that cannibals have the right to kill anyone they choose (?). If he says no, ask him to explain his reasoning in each case (human vs. animal). Call him on any inconsistency (see next point).



2) Humans do not have the same moral obligations to animals that they have to other humans. Since animals do not have moral obligations to us, we do not have moral obligations towards them; therefore he is not compelled to restrict his consumption of animal products because he is not morally obligated to consider the effect their production has on animals. (This is an argument I've never come across before. The only response I can think of right now "why the hell not, jerk?". I believe this is the basis for all his arguments; please help me out with this one in particular!).


As has already been said, there are some humans who are unable to recognise moral obligations to others (young children, the mentally impaired and deranged). Do they have no rights? If his argument is applied consistently, they do not. Whenever anyone argues that animals deserve less for some reason, consider the implications of their argument for humans. In most cases, there is an overlap they have not considered.



3) I made the argument that, since we do not have to consume animal products for sustenance (we can get the nutrients elsewhere, and are better for it), we continue to consume them for pleasure (because they taste good) and convenience (they're everywhere!). I argued that this was akin to killing animals for sexual pleasure, which the vast majority of people would find morally repulsive.

He responded that, while it would be morally virtuous of me not to kill them, I was not morally obligated to, By implication, I think, he has ceded that a vegan lifestyle has a legitimate moral basis--but maintained that it is not morally compelling, for reason #2.


Tom Regan discusses this in The Case For Animal Rights - the difference between obligatory and supererogatory acts. He then explains why vegetarianism is obligatory.

Harpy is right - moral obligations need not be grounded in reciprocity.

[Andy_T]

Well, I'm certainly not a philospher and also not much of a debater. Also, I might be completely understanding some of the jargon here.

But what has me thinking is, if animals do not have a moral obligation to us, then how can we use them? What is the basis for that?

Best regards,
Andy

[gyepitokki]

I like to base some of my arguements for veganism on a mixture of science and morality.


If we were meant to eat meat/dairy, we would not get cholestrol (clogged arteries) : Science has proven that meat and dairy are cholestrol inducing foods; natural carnivores do not get this problem, their digestive tracts handle the substance entirely. This means that they utilise the bones, gristle and all. They need these nutrients, digest them without trouble; humans simply can't digest all parts of meat and a lot of it gets clogged in the intestines (constipation, ew). Cholestrol is the excess of fats and other acids in meat and dairy that we simply can't digest and deposit.
A lot of people would argue that animals have no feelings or any knowledge of what is happening to them. Ask him if he has ever seen an animal taken away from it's owner? Animals become genuinly distressed, scared and anxious just like humans, meaning they can feel pain just like we can. If they are so like us, then it is practically murder; ask him if he would justify killing an animal if it could speak like we could, and tell us how it feels. So far, everyone has said no, to me :)

[pat sommer]

Good luck with the debate!

I rarely debate anymore, I usually only go so far as to ask if the person really believes what is coming out of their mouths. 'Cause if they do, that explains the world we live in, don't it now? What's that phrase about being reasonable... finding a reason for anything you want to do...?

At any rate, the listeners of the debate may be moved regardless of who is on top. It ain't a political race.

[Mymblesdaughter]

Yes, I feel the same Pat. If I think someone is really interested then I will talk to them but many people just want to argue and have very closed minds. You end up getting very frustrated and angry and they are no nearer to seeing your point of view. This is just what I find works for me, I don't see anything wrong with a debate if you're up for it.