Ethics of food.

After obtaining a degree from the University of Leeds in English and Philosophy, Nick Mailer co-authored the first book in the United Kingdom on the education possibilities of the Internet. He co-founded The Positive Internet Company, UK’s premier open-source managed services organisation. He also founded the Campaign for Unmetered Telecommunications and has spoken at conferences on the nexus of culture, technology and semiotics.

Since 2010, Nick has adopted a paleo-ish LCHF lifestyle, to which he nevertheless applies a multidisciplinary scepticism. He lives in London with his wife, daughter and cat.

summerizer

The tragedy of the empathetic carnivore

  • Vegetarianism is ancient, cross-cultural, and persistent; it is not only a shallow modern fad.
  • The ethical problem is separate from health, because meat-based nutrition and moral questions occupy different domains.
  • Vegetarian reasoning links animal inclusion to human moral progress: slaves, race, women, and then animals.
  • That move depends on large premises about equality, moral agency, and the scope of ethical concern.
  • The core question is not whether meat is useful, pleasant, or healthy, but whether eating animals is morally condemnable.

Ethics, axiology, and the “meat is murder” syllogism

  • “Meat is murder” expands into a syllogism: eating meat equals murder; murder is wrong; therefore eating meat is wrong.
  • The hidden weakness is the premise “murder is wrong,” because it may not be a truth-apt fact like “John is unmarried.”
  • Ethics belongs to axiology, the study of values, alongside aesthetics; value judgments may not behave like scientific or analytic facts.
  • Applied ethics asks whether eating meat is right; normative ethics builds systems; metaethics asks what ethical language means at all.
  • Vegan moral pressure hides these layers and makes moral condemnation seem simpler than it is.

Cognitivism, divine command, and Kant

  • In moral cognitivism, moral sentences can be true or false, but that truth needs a ground.
  • Divine command theory fails the Euthyphro problem: either God’s command makes morality arbitrary, or God answers to a standard beyond himself.
  • A divine vegan commandment would not by itself ground Herc’s vegetarian morality.
  • Kant’s categorical imperative seeks universal duties by testing whether a maxim can become universal law.
  • Kantian vegetarianism turns a generalized principle into an axiomatic rulebook, but the rulebook still needs a foundation.
  • Rigid principle can become grotesque when consequences matter, as with starvation during a famine and dependent infants.

Utilitarianism and animal-rights math

  • Consequentialism moves from first principles to outcomes.
  • Bentham’s utilitarianism measures morality by net happiness and suffering, and its animal-rights footnote feeds later vegetarian ethics.
  • Singer’s Animal Liberation carries that line into preference utilitarianism, where sentient preferences are weighed.
  • Utilitarianism becomes unstable when it tries to quantify happiness, suffering, preferences, species differences, and distributions across many beings.
  • The trolley problem, organ allocation, eugenics, and Holocaust rationales show how end-focused calculation can license horror.
  • Vegetarian utilitarian math often makes the happiness of a field-living cow and the suffering of sick humans fungible units.
  • Ballerstedt’s ruminant analysis, Lierre Keith’s The Vegetarian Myth, type 2 diabetes, and malnutrition alter the arithmetic.
  • The moral upper hand requires visible working, not a private calculation.

Hume, Moore, Mackie, Ayer, Hare, and Stevenson

  • Hume marks the leap from “is” to “ought,” where moral language changes category.
  • Moore’s open question problem blocks easy reductions of “good” to pleasure or any other natural property.
  • The naturalistic fallacy means no pile of natural facts simply becomes goodness.
  • Moral nihilism and Mackie’s queerness case push the problem further: objective moral entities would be strange things, and no one has found them.
  • Singer’s Practical Ethics includes the absence of overwhelming reasons that force everyone to act morally.
  • Ayer’s emotivism turns moral speech into approval and disapproval: “meat boo,” “veganism hooray.”
  • Hare and Stevenson add prescriptive force: moral language becomes an attempt to change others and command the world into one’s own approvals and disgusts.

Evolution, disgust, and empathy leakage

  • Morality may be aesthetics with a cudgel: taste, disgust, guilt, pride, and approval armed with social pressure.
  • Evolution makes disgust useful, from bitterness that warns against poisons to moral revulsion against betrayal and murder.
  • Social hunting species need cooperation, truthfulness, sharing, equity, and empathy, because group survival depends on coordinated behavior.
  • Wolves show proto-ethical algorithms; human cooperation with wolves fits a wider hunting heritage.
  • The ethics used in vegan persuasion partly grows out of hunting: shared labor, shared risk, compassion, and fellow-feeling.
  • Human empathy overflows kin, pack, and hunting partners until it reaches prey animals themselves.
  • The predator then feels the prey’s pain, and the capture that once generated “hooray” becomes “boo.”
  • Vegetarian ethics is empathy leakage from the cooperative hunting mind into animals beneath the airplane and in the field.

Douglas Adams and the final tragic knot

  • The Restaurant at the End of the Universe gives a talking animal bred to want its own consumption.
  • Arthur’s revulsion matters because consent bred into prey does not dissolve the tragedy of predation.
  • A happy self-offering dinner animal may satisfy classical utilitarian arithmetic, but it remains ethically fraught.
  • The prey is tragic because it is bred to welcome subservient doom.
  • The predator is also tragic because predation nourished the brain complex enough to empathize with prey.
  • The ethical knot is the tragedy of the empathetic predator: the animal-eater whose own evolutionary success creates the guilt that can turn against eating animals.

References

  • psud@aussie.zoneM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    I wonder if our high empathy, leaking into our prey, happened because we started in the morally perfect position as scavengers

    Though that didn’t slow us down when we became hunters, it seems to make being a herd owner hard

  • silly_goose@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    If you believe that moral facts are self evident or intuitive—I think it’s called intuitionism—we can solve this dilemma.

    The hidden weakness is the premise “murder is wrong,” because it may not be true

    It’s intuitive that murder is wrong so under intuitionism it becomes a fact.

    talking animal bred to want its own consumption

    I think ethical vegans avoid meat because the animal didn’t consent to being killed. If some animal wants to be eaten, it’ll be morally good to fulfil its desire like assisted suicide or euthanasia in case of humans.

    • psud@aussie.zoneM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      The argument is when you go from fact to moral those are incompatible, you can’t make logical argument on moral ideas

      Calling slaughter of an animal “murder” doesn’t follow, murder is pretty narrowly defined so that even sometimes when a person kills a person deliberately it’s not murder

      There’s no way you can A is B therefore C with things amenable to morality

      • silly_goose@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        Calling slaughter of an animal “murder” doesn’t follow

        Yeah murder technically means an unlawful killing of another human being. You can replace “murder” with the word “slaughter” in the argument.

        you can’t make logical argument on moral ideas

        I was writing from a perspective of moral realism which says objective moral facts exist just like in math or science. (Not everyone agrees with it)

        So in this framework, you can treat “torturing innocent is wrong” as any other objective claim like “magnets attract iron” or 1+1=2.

        • psud@aussie.zoneM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 days ago

          torturing innocents is wrong

          Almost everyone agrees that torturing animals is wrong, but some think it’s fine, some think torturing humans is great fun

          That’s why you can’t treat moral positions like facts

          • silly_goose@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            Some think that earth is flat, some think it is round. That doesn’t mean there’s no objective truth. One of those two possibilities is a fact.

            Moral realism

            • psud@aussie.zoneM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 days ago

              I know several ways to measure the shape of the Earth. How do you measure correct morality? Popularity? Alignment with one particular philosophical framework?

              • silly_goose@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                2 days ago

                Good question. Like we measure or prove anything in science or math?

                If it’s a scientific theory like a law of nature, you can create novel testable predictions on how it’ll affect the minds of moral agents like humans.

                If it’s based on math we can derive moral truths from axioms. E.g using game theory.

                Whatever you use for most things we can derive the same conclusions. That’s why most professional philosophers believe in objective morality.

                You should read the link I shared. It contains explanations, many more arguments and counter arguments put forth across thousands of years.

                • psud@aussie.zoneM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  I don’t think I will. I did philosophy at uni and I found morality from first principles unsatisfying, too easy to end with “we should end all suffering by nuking everything so there is nothing left to suffer” or you should donate everything and live in a tent because you have no right to be better off than other people, or other unsatisfying end points

                  They look fine in the middle but fail when taken to their logical limit

            • TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              What do you even mean morality is objective though? It’s just an opinion about what you should do, by that very nature that makes it subjective. "Is"s can be objective (like 1+1=2 or opposite magnetic pokes attracting), but "ought"s cannot be.

              • silly_goose@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                3 days ago

                ought’s are separate from morality. The Euthyphro dilemma illustrates this:

                “Is something good because you ought to do it or you ought to do it because it’s good?”

                If you agree with the latter then what makes something good (morality) is separate and can be used to derive oughts.

                There are many models of objective morality. Famous ones are based on God or karma which is a law of nature in Buddhism. It’s like a weak law like you can go against like how you can pull two magnets apart using a greater force.

                I suggest you read the link I shared.

                • TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  What makes it good besides that you ought to do it? divine command theory? 🫠

                  I do disagree with the fundamental premise of the latter half of your comment

              • Akrenion@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 days ago

                They are arguing a point they do not themselves hold. They said so a few comments up. It is an interesting premise though.

                • silly_goose@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  I believe in objective morality so do the majority of professional philosophers according to surveys but that’s irrelevant.

                  I didn’t want to bring up my personal beliefs into the discussion.