----
Interesting essay. I'm so accustomed to naturalist
consequentialist philosophers these days that to read Paul's piece feels like
landing on an alien planet. :) There's such a huge gap between how we
understand ethics.
There are two ways to read what Paul is saying. First the
less charitable account. I think the project of trying to ground ethics --
whether in naturalism or in religion or in anything else -- is confused. We
care about what we care about. A lot of people, including myself, care about the
suffering of other organisms, and we want to reduce that suffering. This isn't
the same as the "ethics of care" that Paul tries to refute. I'm not
saying that people should treat animals well in proportion to how much they
care about animals. Rather, I'm saying that *I* care about animals, so I'm
going to do what I darn well can to make sure everyone else respects animals to
the degree I think they should. :) It's as simple as that -- there's nothing
more to say about the ethical underpinnings of animal welfare.
Now, the more charitable interpretation of Paul's essay is
to read it not as talking about anything metaphysical -- not as talking about
absolute ethics built into the fabric of the universe -- but rather, just as
talking about what kinds of intuition pumps will persuade others to agree with
you. Indeed, the reason why people started talking in terms of absolute
morality may have been because it's more persuasive to say "God commands you to do
X" or "Absolute morality commands you to do X" than it is to say
"I would really like it if you did X and really dislike it if you didn't.
Pretty please? :D"
Each of the approaches to grounding ethics that Paul cites
may appeal to different people. Some feel moved by moral rights, some by
utilitarianism, some by care ethics, and some by religious or spiritual
messages. It's a matter of choosing the marketing pitch that's most
compelling to the target audience. Certain people do feel uneasy with non-religious
groundings because they sympathize with the intuitions that Paul lays out,
e.g., that nature is red in tooth and claw, so why should humans act any nicer
if they're just animals? Needless to say, that instance of the naturalistic
fallacy is not an argument; it's just a sentiment that some people find
compelling. (I myself find it to be nonsense.) For those who can't easily be
persuaded in other ways, probably Paul is right that appealing to religion
could help.
That said, I'm wary of doing this too much. While caring
about animals is really important, so is not having a deluded outlook on the
world. Religious views especially can fall prey to perverse assumptions that
make animals get hurt, like the belief that nature is "how it was created
to be" and therefore we shouldn't "play god" by intervening.
Some of the most passionate defenses of the view that nature teems with joy
come from religious believers trying to prove that God isn't evil. I doubt this is what Paul had in
mind when he said that religion "has been remiss or complicit in practice,
with respect to animal abuse," but it applies here as well as to direct
human-caused suffering.
No comments:
Post a Comment