I love this description of morality, but am curious about your opinion on the arbitrary decisions comment: do you feel that cultural tuning (often underpinned by cultural heritage and available food options) is an invalid way to select “acceptable” meats? No judgement, your comment just got me thinking
I think in general culture is a pretty poor way to determine what behaviours are morally acceptable. Moral progress is often a matter of overcoming the moral defects of our cultural heritage.
For example the idea that women should be subordinate to men is/was very deeply engrained in Western culture for a very, very long time. But that’s not an argument against gender equality. It is, instead, an argument for improving our culture. So anyone who said “hey, we can’t have gender equality because it goes against our cultural heritage” would be missing the mark. Sure, it might go against our cultural heritage, but so what? We must change our culture to match morality, not ignore morality to preserve our culture.
And its not just our culture that falls into this trap, other cultures can be deeply flawed too. For example, in some cultures female genital mutilation and child marriage are the norm. Does that mean these behaviours are okay, simply because they are culturally accepted? Clearly not. Human rights are universal. If these behaviours were human rights violations in, say, Denmark, then they do not cease to be human rights violations just because they are taking place in a different country with different cultural attitudes.
Now regarding our attitudes to animals, it is true that there is a lot of cultural variation in which animals are acceptable to eat. In India, eating a cow would be largely be seen as disgusting and disrespectful. In Canada, for example, eating a dog would be an outrage, but in some Asian nations this is not the case.
Is this because the value of the individual animals lives shifts from culture to culture? Or is it because the pain these animals experience differs from country to country (does getting your throat slit hurt less for dogs in South Korea than dogs in Canada)? The answers to these questions are no and no. The only differences going on here is culture, and nothing more. These different cultural attitudes do not track any relevant moral differences; they are merely accidents of history.
It is no different than how different regions tend to be racist towards different groups. For example, in the US (to oversimplify a bit) the primary target of racism has been Black people, whereas in China the primary target of racism has the Uyghurs. Is this because racism against Black people is okay in the US (but not in China) and conversely because racism against the Uyghurs is okay in China (but not the US)? No, it’s not. The Americans primarily focus their racism against one group due to circumstances of history, and the Chinese primarily focus their racism against another group due to the circumstances of their history. But that’s all that’s going on. There are no relevant moral differences here, just differences in history and culture. Because in all circumstances, and in all countries, racism directed at any one of any group is morally indefensible.
It’s similar with animals. Causing significant unnecessary suffering to a being who does not want to suffer is morally indefensible. It does not matter who the being that suffers is. It does not matter if that being is a dog, cat, pig, chicken or human. If that being does not want to suffer, and there is no strong overriding reason as to why they ought suffer, then we have no morally defensible reason for causing them to suffer. Culture does not change that.
So, since farming and slaughtering animals with industrial efficiency causes animals significant suffering, the compassionate thing to do is to simply not partake in that system. And in order to not participate in this system one must have a vegan diet.
If you’re interested in this line of reasoning then I recommend checking out the paper All Animals Are Equal by Peter Singer. It gets into the ethics behind veganism with much more detail and clarity than I can provide here.
Thank you for your question, I hope you found this response helpful.
Not the person to whom you were replying, but I appreciated your comment.
These are really fun philosophical topics, that I’ve enjoyed talking about in person several times. I don’t think that human rights are universal, because I don’t personally believe that morality exists external to culture.
If these behaviours were human rights violations in, say, Denmark, then they do not cease to be human rights violations just because they are taking place in a different country with different cultural attitudes.
This implies that certain cultures’ mores are more correct than others’, which probably feels right to you because those countries’ norms align more closely with yours. I feel the same way, but I don’t think it’s a FACT.
I absolutely also agree that FGM is bad, but being a human rights violation in Denmark doesn’t ipso facto prove that it’s true. I.e. in the U.S. it’s now illegal for many industries/schools/orgs to promote DEI, but that doesn’t mean that other countries should do the same. I’m sure Denmark has some bad takes too, though I don’t know the country well enough to think of any.
Just starting an argument online for fun while on the throne, don’t take me too seriously, friend!
I don’t think that human rights are universal, because I don’t personally believe that morality exists external to culture.
I was just using human rights ad a shorthand here. You don’t necessarily need to believe in rights per se to believe that morality is more than just a cultural phenomenon.
The biggest problem with the idea that morality is solely a cultural phenomenon is that it leads to some pretty crazy conclusions. To give on example: in the culture of Nazi Germany, they did not think that the holocaust was a bad thing. They actually thought it was a moral good. Is there no sense in which we can day, actually, no, the Nazis were wrong on this one: rounding people up and torturing/killing them en masse is actually wrong, regardless of what your culture says? Similarly with slavery. In the culture of the confederacy, slavery was okay. Is there no sense in which we can say, actually no: a culture in which slavery is okay is a flawed culture; it is better to have a culture that does not promote this sort of thing? If culture is only a product of culture then we cannot actually assert this, just like we cannot say that the Nazis were in the wrong even though, from the point of view of their culture, they were in the right.
This implies that certain cultures’ mores are more correct than others’, which probably feels right to you because those countries’ norms align more closely with yours.
As a vegan, I don’t think is the case! I think our cultures norms around animals does not align closely what feels right to me at all. Of all the cultures that have ever existed, the Western treatment of animals is by far the worst. Christian doctrine places animals very low down on the totem pole of moral consideration. Other religions, that have influenced other regions of the world, do not do this. Granted our system of factory farming is being exported to the rest of the world, but there are still some holdouts. For example there some Indigenous or Inuit cultures in rural Canada or Greenland that still partly live their traditional ways of life. I think those cultures are actually better than ours.
I love this description of morality, but am curious about your opinion on the arbitrary decisions comment: do you feel that cultural tuning (often underpinned by cultural heritage and available food options) is an invalid way to select “acceptable” meats? No judgement, your comment just got me thinking
I think in general culture is a pretty poor way to determine what behaviours are morally acceptable. Moral progress is often a matter of overcoming the moral defects of our cultural heritage.
For example the idea that women should be subordinate to men is/was very deeply engrained in Western culture for a very, very long time. But that’s not an argument against gender equality. It is, instead, an argument for improving our culture. So anyone who said “hey, we can’t have gender equality because it goes against our cultural heritage” would be missing the mark. Sure, it might go against our cultural heritage, but so what? We must change our culture to match morality, not ignore morality to preserve our culture.
And its not just our culture that falls into this trap, other cultures can be deeply flawed too. For example, in some cultures female genital mutilation and child marriage are the norm. Does that mean these behaviours are okay, simply because they are culturally accepted? Clearly not. Human rights are universal. If these behaviours were human rights violations in, say, Denmark, then they do not cease to be human rights violations just because they are taking place in a different country with different cultural attitudes.
Now regarding our attitudes to animals, it is true that there is a lot of cultural variation in which animals are acceptable to eat. In India, eating a cow would be largely be seen as disgusting and disrespectful. In Canada, for example, eating a dog would be an outrage, but in some Asian nations this is not the case.
Is this because the value of the individual animals lives shifts from culture to culture? Or is it because the pain these animals experience differs from country to country (does getting your throat slit hurt less for dogs in South Korea than dogs in Canada)? The answers to these questions are no and no. The only differences going on here is culture, and nothing more. These different cultural attitudes do not track any relevant moral differences; they are merely accidents of history.
It is no different than how different regions tend to be racist towards different groups. For example, in the US (to oversimplify a bit) the primary target of racism has been Black people, whereas in China the primary target of racism has the Uyghurs. Is this because racism against Black people is okay in the US (but not in China) and conversely because racism against the Uyghurs is okay in China (but not the US)? No, it’s not. The Americans primarily focus their racism against one group due to circumstances of history, and the Chinese primarily focus their racism against another group due to the circumstances of their history. But that’s all that’s going on. There are no relevant moral differences here, just differences in history and culture. Because in all circumstances, and in all countries, racism directed at any one of any group is morally indefensible.
It’s similar with animals. Causing significant unnecessary suffering to a being who does not want to suffer is morally indefensible. It does not matter who the being that suffers is. It does not matter if that being is a dog, cat, pig, chicken or human. If that being does not want to suffer, and there is no strong overriding reason as to why they ought suffer, then we have no morally defensible reason for causing them to suffer. Culture does not change that.
So, since farming and slaughtering animals with industrial efficiency causes animals significant suffering, the compassionate thing to do is to simply not partake in that system. And in order to not participate in this system one must have a vegan diet.
If you’re interested in this line of reasoning then I recommend checking out the paper All Animals Are Equal by Peter Singer. It gets into the ethics behind veganism with much more detail and clarity than I can provide here.
Thank you for your question, I hope you found this response helpful.
Not the person to whom you were replying, but I appreciated your comment.
These are really fun philosophical topics, that I’ve enjoyed talking about in person several times. I don’t think that human rights are universal, because I don’t personally believe that morality exists external to culture.
This implies that certain cultures’ mores are more correct than others’, which probably feels right to you because those countries’ norms align more closely with yours. I feel the same way, but I don’t think it’s a FACT.
I absolutely also agree that FGM is bad, but being a human rights violation in Denmark doesn’t ipso facto prove that it’s true. I.e. in the U.S. it’s now illegal for many industries/schools/orgs to promote DEI, but that doesn’t mean that other countries should do the same. I’m sure Denmark has some bad takes too, though I don’t know the country well enough to think of any.
Just starting an argument online for fun while on the throne, don’t take me too seriously, friend!
I was just using human rights ad a shorthand here. You don’t necessarily need to believe in rights per se to believe that morality is more than just a cultural phenomenon.
The biggest problem with the idea that morality is solely a cultural phenomenon is that it leads to some pretty crazy conclusions. To give on example: in the culture of Nazi Germany, they did not think that the holocaust was a bad thing. They actually thought it was a moral good. Is there no sense in which we can day, actually, no, the Nazis were wrong on this one: rounding people up and torturing/killing them en masse is actually wrong, regardless of what your culture says? Similarly with slavery. In the culture of the confederacy, slavery was okay. Is there no sense in which we can say, actually no: a culture in which slavery is okay is a flawed culture; it is better to have a culture that does not promote this sort of thing? If culture is only a product of culture then we cannot actually assert this, just like we cannot say that the Nazis were in the wrong even though, from the point of view of their culture, they were in the right.
As a vegan, I don’t think is the case! I think our cultures norms around animals does not align closely what feels right to me at all. Of all the cultures that have ever existed, the Western treatment of animals is by far the worst. Christian doctrine places animals very low down on the totem pole of moral consideration. Other religions, that have influenced other regions of the world, do not do this. Granted our system of factory farming is being exported to the rest of the world, but there are still some holdouts. For example there some Indigenous or Inuit cultures in rural Canada or Greenland that still partly live their traditional ways of life. I think those cultures are actually better than ours.