You attribute obviously wrong unstated premises to opponents such as, "all actions that are necessary for health are not wrong". A more charitable interpretation would be, "all things being equal, that an action is necessary for health is a good reason in favour of that action being permissible". That can then feed into a broader argument, along with additional pro tanto reasons in favour of eating meat and arguments minimising the harm of eating meat, that "the overall reasons in favour of eating meat are sufficiently strong compared to the overall reasons against eating meat to make it morally permissible". That won't justify cruel factory farming practices, but it might justify products like free range beef, if the cows live a good life, are killed quickly on site, and wouldn't live any life at all if they weren't bred for this purpose. I disagree with that as a vegetarian, but it's a debateable position. Most issues are complex and involve weighing up multiple pro tanto reasons for and against. Few issues can be settled by syllogisms that immediately lead to a conclusion in themselves, because there are very few exceptionless moral rules. Counterexamples exist to virtually every moral rule, and while you can avoid this by making more and more narrowly tailored (and clunky) rules, a better approach may be just to weaken the rules to say they yield a pro tanto reason, and then weigh those reasons. That's also probably closer to how the average person thinks, so attributing extreme unstated premises to them is liable to come across as unreasonable.
You attribute obviously wrong unstated premises to opponents such as, "all actions that are necessary for health are not wrong".
NN: Hmm, no, it's very common for people (even philosophers) to quickly claim that if eating meat were necessary for health, then it'd be morally permissible. At the least, this is unreflective since it doesn't seem like if eating, say, babies were necessary for someone's health, that would be OK. So more is needed. I have an article about this and have reviewed quite a few on this topic recently.
A more charitable interpretation would be, "all things being equal, that an action is necessary for health is a good reason in favour of that action being permissible". That can then feed into a broader argument, along with additional pro tanto reasons in favour of eating meat and arguments minimising the harm of eating meat, that "the overall reasons in favour of eating meat are sufficiently strong compared to the overall reasons against eating meat to make it morally permissible".
NN: OK, but there is a lot of weasel words here, so who knows?
That won't justify cruel factory farming practices
NN: Why not?!
, but it might justify products like free range beef, if the cows live a good life, are killed quickly on site, and wouldn't live any life at all if they weren't bred for this purpose.
NN: OK, although such a view would have to think about the harm of death for these cows, what "X wouldn't exist if we didn't bring X into existence" does here or anywhere else.
I disagree with that as a vegetarian, but it's a debateable position. Most issues are complex and involve weighing up multiple pro tanto reasons for and against. Few issues can be settled by syllogisms that immediately lead to a conclusion in themselves, because there are very few exceptionless moral rules. Counterexamples exist to virtually every moral rule, and while you can avoid this by making more and more narrowly tailored (and clunky) rules, a better approach may be just to weaken the rules to say they yield a pro tanto reason, and then weigh those reasons. That's also probably closer to how the average person thinks, so attributing extreme unstated premises to them is liable to come across as unreasonable.
NN: Thanks, but there seems to be a decent chance that you are misunderstanding the point here -- perhaps since there's no narration -- which is just perhaps your point, namely that things are often more complicated than simplistic critics, and others, think they are: they often seem to think that simplistic rebuttals like these are slam-dunks, when they are not.
Thank you for your response. The conclusion of the slideshow states that logic can save lives, and I interpreted that to mean you were suggesting that the sorts of rebuttals you make in the slideshow may convince people to adopt a plant-based diet. My contention is that they won't, and might even be seen as strawmen. That's because even if an unreflective person did think that health benefits or pleasure were slam dunks, most intelligent adults can come up with the revised position that they are reasons in favour of meat eating that might outweigh reasons against. Once they arrive at that position, your rebuttals to the extreme premises lose their relevance. That's why a better approach is the more charitable one: acknowledge that some of the arguments are valid pro tanto reasons in favour of eating meat, but explain why they are outweighed by its harms. If your only purpose was to highlight complexity then attacking the extreme premises achieves that, but the more charitable route highlights complexity and also persuades, and hence is superior.
Thanks for your response, but it appears you did not read carefully here. What's said, again on slides that are the backdrop for a talk, is that this "can" help: later it says it "can" help, "sometimes." And that is all true.
Since you are anonymous, I have no idea what experience you have in talking to a range of people about these types of issues. And different people will engage people in different ways: I encourage you to experiment and see what seems to work best for you, given what evidence comes your way concerning how people often engage these issues, and then share any tips in light of that.
You attribute obviously wrong unstated premises to opponents such as, "all actions that are necessary for health are not wrong". A more charitable interpretation would be, "all things being equal, that an action is necessary for health is a good reason in favour of that action being permissible". That can then feed into a broader argument, along with additional pro tanto reasons in favour of eating meat and arguments minimising the harm of eating meat, that "the overall reasons in favour of eating meat are sufficiently strong compared to the overall reasons against eating meat to make it morally permissible". That won't justify cruel factory farming practices, but it might justify products like free range beef, if the cows live a good life, are killed quickly on site, and wouldn't live any life at all if they weren't bred for this purpose. I disagree with that as a vegetarian, but it's a debateable position. Most issues are complex and involve weighing up multiple pro tanto reasons for and against. Few issues can be settled by syllogisms that immediately lead to a conclusion in themselves, because there are very few exceptionless moral rules. Counterexamples exist to virtually every moral rule, and while you can avoid this by making more and more narrowly tailored (and clunky) rules, a better approach may be just to weaken the rules to say they yield a pro tanto reason, and then weigh those reasons. That's also probably closer to how the average person thinks, so attributing extreme unstated premises to them is liable to come across as unreasonable.
ReplyDeleteNN-- Thanks for your comments. Responses below:
DeleteYou attribute obviously wrong unstated premises to opponents such as, "all actions that are necessary for health are not wrong".
NN: Hmm, no, it's very common for people (even philosophers) to quickly claim that if eating meat were necessary for health, then it'd be morally permissible. At the least, this is unreflective since it doesn't seem like if eating, say, babies were necessary for someone's health, that would be OK. So more is needed. I have an article about this and have reviewed quite a few on this topic recently.
A more charitable interpretation would be, "all things being equal, that an action is necessary for health is a good reason in favour of that action being permissible". That can then feed into a broader argument, along with additional pro tanto reasons in favour of eating meat and arguments minimising the harm of eating meat, that "the overall reasons in favour of eating meat are sufficiently strong compared to the overall reasons against eating meat to make it morally permissible".
NN: OK, but there is a lot of weasel words here, so who knows?
That won't justify cruel factory farming practices
NN: Why not?!
, but it might justify products like free range beef, if the cows live a good life, are killed quickly on site, and wouldn't live any life at all if they weren't bred for this purpose.
NN: OK, although such a view would have to think about the harm of death for these cows, what "X wouldn't exist if we didn't bring X into existence" does here or anywhere else.
I disagree with that as a vegetarian, but it's a debateable position. Most issues are complex and involve weighing up multiple pro tanto reasons for and against. Few issues can be settled by syllogisms that immediately lead to a conclusion in themselves, because there are very few exceptionless moral rules. Counterexamples exist to virtually every moral rule, and while you can avoid this by making more and more narrowly tailored (and clunky) rules, a better approach may be just to weaken the rules to say they yield a pro tanto reason, and then weigh those reasons. That's also probably closer to how the average person thinks, so attributing extreme unstated premises to them is liable to come across as unreasonable.
NN: Thanks, but there seems to be a decent chance that you are misunderstanding the point here -- perhaps since there's no narration -- which is just perhaps your point, namely that things are often more complicated than simplistic critics, and others, think they are: they often seem to think that simplistic rebuttals like these are slam-dunks, when they are not.
Thank you for your response. The conclusion of the slideshow states that logic can save lives, and I interpreted that to mean you were suggesting that the sorts of rebuttals you make in the slideshow may convince people to adopt a plant-based diet. My contention is that they won't, and might even be seen as strawmen. That's because even if an unreflective person did think that health benefits or pleasure were slam dunks, most intelligent adults can come up with the revised position that they are reasons in favour of meat eating that might outweigh reasons against. Once they arrive at that position, your rebuttals to the extreme premises lose their relevance. That's why a better approach is the more charitable one: acknowledge that some of the arguments are valid pro tanto reasons in favour of eating meat, but explain why they are outweighed by its harms. If your only purpose was to highlight complexity then attacking the extreme premises achieves that, but the more charitable route highlights complexity and also persuades, and hence is superior.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response, but it appears you did not read carefully here. What's said, again on slides that are the backdrop for a talk, is that this "can" help: later it says it "can" help, "sometimes." And that is all true.
DeleteSince you are anonymous, I have no idea what experience you have in talking to a range of people about these types of issues. And different people will engage people in different ways: I encourage you to experiment and see what seems to work best for you, given what evidence comes your way concerning how people often engage these issues, and then share any tips in light of that.