Score for Friday: 5
Sounds unlikely, but it's legitimate. Our web guy hasn't been around the last two days, and my understanding was that the site had to be ready by yesterday afternoon, so I was worrying about how it was going to get done. Then I decided to go to one of the public computers with Dreamweaver on it and make the site myself, even though I only ever used web design software once, and that was in 2000. I totally made it happen, and I think it turned out really well. Unfortunately it's a password protected site for our stakeholders only, so I can't post a link to it, but I'm happy with the way things worked out.
Saturday, August 01, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
I like the idea of reviving the rating system. Here's the rubric I'm going to use:
1=not only was I not virtuous, I actually made myself and the rest of the world demonstrably worse
2=no virtue but no major negatives either.
3=average or slightly above average. Took care of my basic duties.
4=strong effort. Not only took care of my duties but was on-point throughout the day. If everyday were a 4, my life would be highly virtuous.
5=highest effort+virtue+excellent results. 5s will be rare, as they should be, and they will only be awarded on days when I do something truly exceptional, like a particularly virtuous act, or if I make a major breakthrough on a project as the result of pushing myself extra hard. These will be days where I either reach the highest level, or, better yet, actually redefine the highest level.
I will also be interested in posting monthly averages and other descriptive statistics. Days without posts will be treated as "2"s.
1=not only was I not virtuous, I actually made myself and the rest of the world demonstrably worse
2=no virtue but no major negatives either.
3=average or slightly above average. Took care of my basic duties.
4=strong effort. Not only took care of my duties but was on-point throughout the day. If everyday were a 4, my life would be highly virtuous.
5=highest effort+virtue+excellent results. 5s will be rare, as they should be, and they will only be awarded on days when I do something truly exceptional, like a particularly virtuous act, or if I make a major breakthrough on a project as the result of pushing myself extra hard. These will be days where I either reach the highest level, or, better yet, actually redefine the highest level.
I will also be interested in posting monthly averages and other descriptive statistics. Days without posts will be treated as "2"s.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
I became vegetarian for two reasons: one ethical and the other environmental. Regarding the environmental issue, it is possible to farm meat via environmentally sustainable practices (look at Polyface Farm in Virginia for an example). So assuming that a meat eater limits himself to environmentally sustainable meat, the only objection I have left is ethical.
Recently, I have been contemplating an ethical argument that might cause me to eat meat again, unless I can honestly refute it. The ethical position that I held up until now was based on the sentience principle. Animals can manifestly feel pain, and in some cases, it seems they can experience dread and other more nuanced forms of suffering. The idea is that inflicting pain on a sentient creature is wrong. Unless we must kill animals, then we shouldn't, because they have an interest in avoiding pain.
There are two objections that are commonly raised to my argument, but I think neither of them holds water. The first is that there is an inherent difference between humans and animals, and this difference justifies eating them. The second is that animals eat other animals in nature all the time, so for us to eat animals, which we have done for thousands of years, is just another instance of this natural pattern. I have counter-arguments for both of them, so e-mail me if you want, and I can address them. For the issue at hand, they are unimportant.
Anyway, back to my own argument. The idea is that we have a moral imperative because we can recognize an animal's interest in avoiding pain and suffering. The challenge that is bothering me so much relates to domestication. But first, let me state it in the abstract: if an animal is faced with two situations, one in which he experiences more pain and suffering and one in which he experiences less, even though he may not be able to understand the alternatives ahead of time in a fully human way, we can assume that the option with less suffering would be preferable, no?
Ok, so we've domesticated a host of animals like pigs, chickens, and cows. If everyone became vegetarian, what would happen to the animals? They'd either die or they'd enter the wild. If they died, my guess is that it would be from starvation or predation, both of which are presumably unpleasant. So let's imagine a hypothetical young chicken. He has five possible lives: he can grow up on a modern industrial farm and be slaughtered, he can grow up on a humane farm like Polyface and be slaughtered, he can be released into the wild and starve to death, he can be released into the wild and be eaten by another animal, or he can be released into the wild and die of old age. Can we weigh these options in terms of relative suffering? Conferring interval values on these scenarios, I would rate them as follows (with 10 being the highest suffering)
Commercial farm: 10
Polyface: 3
Starvation: 7
Predation: 6
Old age: 1
I know that's rough, but do you agree with the order of them? Or, at the very least, isn't Polyface the second most humane option after old age? But how realistic is it that chickens in the wild would live happily until they die of old age?
The argument that is troubling me arises out of those numbers above. If farming is done in a humane way, with conditions that allow the animals to fulfill their innate behavioral impulses, isn't it actually better than most other options, and arguably all plausible options?
One possible objection to this hinges on the idea of freedom, as in, making the above argument is akin to saying Southern slaves were better off in slavery because once they were released they would suffer tremendous hardship due to their lack of capital, education, and skills. In fact, freed slaves did suffer tremendously (and inversely, during slavery, from a purely material stand point, some slaves were in better shape than some freed whites--read Roots if that sounds false). However, no one would defend slavery on these grounds, because we recognize that humans have an inherent right to freedom. So perhaps even if humane farms are better than the wild, we should liberate them anyway because freedom is inherently more just.
My response to this is that freedom (in a philosophical sense) is valueless to most animals because they can't experience it. I doubt (and I know I can't prove it) that a chicken on Polyface, despite his lovely surroundings everyday, laments the constraints placed on his movement by his owners. He may not even know he is captive. Furthermore, these animals are domesticated, meaning that their natural state is to be in the care of humans! What would it mean to release all the cows, domestic pigs, and chickens into the wilderness--wouldn't their species go extinct? Accordingly, I reject the freedom objection to the argument I've outlined above.
I've been vegetarian for over 10 years. It has become a fundamental part of my life, to the point where I would fear losing some aspect of my identity if I switched back to eating meat. However, I am committed to living an examined life, and after examination, I have found an argument in favor of eating meat that I cannot refute. If I decide to start eating meat again, it will only be under very specific circumstances. No Taco Bell, no Tony Luke's. All of my meat would need to come from a farm like Polyface, without exception. Please post thoughts.
Recently, I have been contemplating an ethical argument that might cause me to eat meat again, unless I can honestly refute it. The ethical position that I held up until now was based on the sentience principle. Animals can manifestly feel pain, and in some cases, it seems they can experience dread and other more nuanced forms of suffering. The idea is that inflicting pain on a sentient creature is wrong. Unless we must kill animals, then we shouldn't, because they have an interest in avoiding pain.
There are two objections that are commonly raised to my argument, but I think neither of them holds water. The first is that there is an inherent difference between humans and animals, and this difference justifies eating them. The second is that animals eat other animals in nature all the time, so for us to eat animals, which we have done for thousands of years, is just another instance of this natural pattern. I have counter-arguments for both of them, so e-mail me if you want, and I can address them. For the issue at hand, they are unimportant.
Anyway, back to my own argument. The idea is that we have a moral imperative because we can recognize an animal's interest in avoiding pain and suffering. The challenge that is bothering me so much relates to domestication. But first, let me state it in the abstract: if an animal is faced with two situations, one in which he experiences more pain and suffering and one in which he experiences less, even though he may not be able to understand the alternatives ahead of time in a fully human way, we can assume that the option with less suffering would be preferable, no?
Ok, so we've domesticated a host of animals like pigs, chickens, and cows. If everyone became vegetarian, what would happen to the animals? They'd either die or they'd enter the wild. If they died, my guess is that it would be from starvation or predation, both of which are presumably unpleasant. So let's imagine a hypothetical young chicken. He has five possible lives: he can grow up on a modern industrial farm and be slaughtered, he can grow up on a humane farm like Polyface and be slaughtered, he can be released into the wild and starve to death, he can be released into the wild and be eaten by another animal, or he can be released into the wild and die of old age. Can we weigh these options in terms of relative suffering? Conferring interval values on these scenarios, I would rate them as follows (with 10 being the highest suffering)
Commercial farm: 10
Polyface: 3
Starvation: 7
Predation: 6
Old age: 1
I know that's rough, but do you agree with the order of them? Or, at the very least, isn't Polyface the second most humane option after old age? But how realistic is it that chickens in the wild would live happily until they die of old age?
The argument that is troubling me arises out of those numbers above. If farming is done in a humane way, with conditions that allow the animals to fulfill their innate behavioral impulses, isn't it actually better than most other options, and arguably all plausible options?
One possible objection to this hinges on the idea of freedom, as in, making the above argument is akin to saying Southern slaves were better off in slavery because once they were released they would suffer tremendous hardship due to their lack of capital, education, and skills. In fact, freed slaves did suffer tremendously (and inversely, during slavery, from a purely material stand point, some slaves were in better shape than some freed whites--read Roots if that sounds false). However, no one would defend slavery on these grounds, because we recognize that humans have an inherent right to freedom. So perhaps even if humane farms are better than the wild, we should liberate them anyway because freedom is inherently more just.
My response to this is that freedom (in a philosophical sense) is valueless to most animals because they can't experience it. I doubt (and I know I can't prove it) that a chicken on Polyface, despite his lovely surroundings everyday, laments the constraints placed on his movement by his owners. He may not even know he is captive. Furthermore, these animals are domesticated, meaning that their natural state is to be in the care of humans! What would it mean to release all the cows, domestic pigs, and chickens into the wilderness--wouldn't their species go extinct? Accordingly, I reject the freedom objection to the argument I've outlined above.
I've been vegetarian for over 10 years. It has become a fundamental part of my life, to the point where I would fear losing some aspect of my identity if I switched back to eating meat. However, I am committed to living an examined life, and after examination, I have found an argument in favor of eating meat that I cannot refute. If I decide to start eating meat again, it will only be under very specific circumstances. No Taco Bell, no Tony Luke's. All of my meat would need to come from a farm like Polyface, without exception. Please post thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
