On this topic there is an excellent philosopher called Josh Milburn at Loughborough who writes a lot on animal rights. He's fantastic company and has some very radical ideas and tackles the question of stem cell meat which many vegans and vegetarians still have issues with for its ethics.
I think this was an interesting discussion. Where …
On this topic there is an excellent philosopher called Josh Milburn at Loughborough who writes a lot on animal rights. He's fantastic company and has some very radical ideas and tackles the question of stem cell meat which many vegans and vegetarians still have issues with for its ethics.
I think this was an interesting discussion. Where I disagree with Nussbaum is that most people don't like inconsistencies. Almost everyone has inconsistencies and I don't think it's easy to get away from that. Nussbaum often uses civil rights as a foundation for animal rights but embedded within civil rights movements are exactly the inconsistencies which we still see operating today. No claim of rationality is likely to get you to a comprehensive consistent worldview and the ones that do are likely to be so broad and lacking in depth you can unpick them without too much effort.
The moral flaw of inconsistency that Nussbaum attacks I think is a problem though. To my mind it's not an inconsistency. You will naturally be attached to people and things which have more emotional resonance and is closer to you in distance (including time) than other things. That's not a matter of inconsistency, indeed it is unfeasible to suggest we care about all things in any category equally.
We care about dogs not because they are intelligent (we see feral dogs in some mediterranean countries as sad but inevitable) but because they are our pets creating a form of friendship which are not attributed to other animals. Thus our attachment is simply one of close bonding and friendship (farmers will experience this with other animals) as opposed to a rational idea about what animals as a broader category deserve and why.
On this topic there is an excellent philosopher called Josh Milburn at Loughborough who writes a lot on animal rights. He's fantastic company and has some very radical ideas and tackles the question of stem cell meat which many vegans and vegetarians still have issues with for its ethics.
I think this was an interesting discussion. Where I disagree with Nussbaum is that most people don't like inconsistencies. Almost everyone has inconsistencies and I don't think it's easy to get away from that. Nussbaum often uses civil rights as a foundation for animal rights but embedded within civil rights movements are exactly the inconsistencies which we still see operating today. No claim of rationality is likely to get you to a comprehensive consistent worldview and the ones that do are likely to be so broad and lacking in depth you can unpick them without too much effort.
The moral flaw of inconsistency that Nussbaum attacks I think is a problem though. To my mind it's not an inconsistency. You will naturally be attached to people and things which have more emotional resonance and is closer to you in distance (including time) than other things. That's not a matter of inconsistency, indeed it is unfeasible to suggest we care about all things in any category equally.
We care about dogs not because they are intelligent (we see feral dogs in some mediterranean countries as sad but inevitable) but because they are our pets creating a form of friendship which are not attributed to other animals. Thus our attachment is simply one of close bonding and friendship (farmers will experience this with other animals) as opposed to a rational idea about what animals as a broader category deserve and why.