India has free healthcare for 800 million people, free food for 800 million. Social security doesn't have to be handing off dollars. There are scores of other schemes providing free houses free electricity free transport free cooking gas to the lower income groups . Sorry for you but nobody is dying of famine in India ever since the British left. Next time you plan to speak about India, do some research and then open your mouth
I think Shadi may have underplayed the extent to which Islam can provide support for animal rights. Admittedly, Shadi is Muslim and I am not, so he's much more of an expert than me, but you can certainly find articles on Islam and animal rights that provide extensive textual support, both from the Quran and from various hadiths. Here's an example: https://www.khaleafa.com/khaleafacom/islam-and-animal-rights
From the Quran, we have "There is not an animal that lives on the earth, nor a being that flies on its wings, but they form communities like you. Nothing have we omitted from the Book, and they all shall be gathered to their Lord in the end." This would seem to provide support for the idea that we should look at the complexity of animal community interactions and directly compare them to our own communities as humans.
There's also this hadith: “A good deed done to an animal is like a good deed done to a human being, while an act of cruelty to an animal is as bad as cruelty to a human being." Based on that, how could anyone say that rights are only endowed by the Creator upon humans?
Interesting but it could have been more (civilly)contentious. We need less people? Respectfully disagree. Similarly, if we concerned about lifting human living standards we need more container ships. Respect the accomplished professor and her case but she should be more receptive to other naturalist conceptions.
it's funny too, when either of us tried to press her on the political aspect (much less the moral) she would draw grand analogies (history of feminism!) rather than anything that could specifically persuade Shadi that animals deserve more than they are currently give.
She's just flat out wrong about India and overpopulation, but it seems like most of the rest of the disagreement is mostly some weird generational semantic barrier I can't quite put my finger on. Like, when she answers the question about dealing with the fact that most people just let their lizardbrain dictate things and meat is tasty and how are you going to change that, she basically says "incentives" without framing it in an econ or EA way. In other words, you aren't going to change it. You will just make it easier for people to do better by making them not to have to sacrifice so much. Or her answer about the root of morality is basically "telos" with telos defined as the ability to fulfill one's goals across time. She's explaining the moral root of life in the hot, biting sense of moral wrongness most people feel when a child dies, precisely the thing making so many people angry about death in Gaza. The suffering in Gaza isn't just physical agony. It's all the gardens blown up, all the children not born or killed, all the houses knocked down, and so on. The death of potential and curtailment of fulfillment. Isn't this like *the* thing driving Palestinian nationalism? I feel like I consistently understood what she was saying.
You both were so gracious and thoughtful and I was honestly surprised by her petulance. Shadi showed the patience of Job. As you tried to convey, one can be sympathetic to the case and still raise legitimate concerns. Excuse my candor, and I’m not a professional philosopher and greatly respect her work, but IMHO that kind of stridency doesn’t serve philosophy.
since it is our venue, I think neither of us wanted to be inhospitable to our guest—I do think there is a massive philosophical issue below the surface though. As I said live, the issue is about love of nature as a whole. We've collectively made decisions largely to ignore our effect on nature—and I'm v skeptical general talk about "justice" is going to cut it in response.
Precisely, no need to be inhospitable and the parochial focus is not grappling with the (existential) issue. Enjoying all the WoC material. Peerless. Have a great weekend!
What an incredibly tiresome conversation. I applaud Shadi for keeping his cool with someone so high up the Ivory tower, and Sam for trying to steer the boat.
I would be interested in a conversation with someone defending her comments about human population (with actual facts as other commentors have noted), especially as the fearmongering about overpopulation seems to be waning...
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.
Right now we are releasing video clips and audio only full episodes. But in the near future we hope to upload an entire edited video episode on Substack. Thank you for liking our stuff!
Super interesting, thanks!
Thank you for listening!
India has free healthcare for 800 million people, free food for 800 million. Social security doesn't have to be handing off dollars. There are scores of other schemes providing free houses free electricity free transport free cooking gas to the lower income groups . Sorry for you but nobody is dying of famine in India ever since the British left. Next time you plan to speak about India, do some research and then open your mouth
I think Shadi may have underplayed the extent to which Islam can provide support for animal rights. Admittedly, Shadi is Muslim and I am not, so he's much more of an expert than me, but you can certainly find articles on Islam and animal rights that provide extensive textual support, both from the Quran and from various hadiths. Here's an example: https://www.khaleafa.com/khaleafacom/islam-and-animal-rights
From the Quran, we have "There is not an animal that lives on the earth, nor a being that flies on its wings, but they form communities like you. Nothing have we omitted from the Book, and they all shall be gathered to their Lord in the end." This would seem to provide support for the idea that we should look at the complexity of animal community interactions and directly compare them to our own communities as humans.
There's also this hadith: “A good deed done to an animal is like a good deed done to a human being, while an act of cruelty to an animal is as bad as cruelty to a human being." Based on that, how could anyone say that rights are only endowed by the Creator upon humans?
This episode activated reactionary instincts in me that I didn’t even know I had. Kudos to Shadi & Sam for their respectful pushback!
Interesting but it could have been more (civilly)contentious. We need less people? Respectfully disagree. Similarly, if we concerned about lifting human living standards we need more container ships. Respect the accomplished professor and her case but she should be more receptive to other naturalist conceptions.
it's funny too, when either of us tried to press her on the political aspect (much less the moral) she would draw grand analogies (history of feminism!) rather than anything that could specifically persuade Shadi that animals deserve more than they are currently give.
She's just flat out wrong about India and overpopulation, but it seems like most of the rest of the disagreement is mostly some weird generational semantic barrier I can't quite put my finger on. Like, when she answers the question about dealing with the fact that most people just let their lizardbrain dictate things and meat is tasty and how are you going to change that, she basically says "incentives" without framing it in an econ or EA way. In other words, you aren't going to change it. You will just make it easier for people to do better by making them not to have to sacrifice so much. Or her answer about the root of morality is basically "telos" with telos defined as the ability to fulfill one's goals across time. She's explaining the moral root of life in the hot, biting sense of moral wrongness most people feel when a child dies, precisely the thing making so many people angry about death in Gaza. The suffering in Gaza isn't just physical agony. It's all the gardens blown up, all the children not born or killed, all the houses knocked down, and so on. The death of potential and curtailment of fulfillment. Isn't this like *the* thing driving Palestinian nationalism? I feel like I consistently understood what she was saying.
You both were so gracious and thoughtful and I was honestly surprised by her petulance. Shadi showed the patience of Job. As you tried to convey, one can be sympathetic to the case and still raise legitimate concerns. Excuse my candor, and I’m not a professional philosopher and greatly respect her work, but IMHO that kind of stridency doesn’t serve philosophy.
since it is our venue, I think neither of us wanted to be inhospitable to our guest—I do think there is a massive philosophical issue below the surface though. As I said live, the issue is about love of nature as a whole. We've collectively made decisions largely to ignore our effect on nature—and I'm v skeptical general talk about "justice" is going to cut it in response.
Precisely, no need to be inhospitable and the parochial focus is not grappling with the (existential) issue. Enjoying all the WoC material. Peerless. Have a great weekend!
What an incredibly tiresome conversation. I applaud Shadi for keeping his cool with someone so high up the Ivory tower, and Sam for trying to steer the boat.
I would be interested in a conversation with someone defending her comments about human population (with actual facts as other commentors have noted), especially as the fearmongering about overpopulation seems to be waning...
Great episode.
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.
Does this one include a video version somewhere?
Right now we are releasing video clips and audio only full episodes. But in the near future we hope to upload an entire edited video episode on Substack. Thank you for liking our stuff!