tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post3673641697356162892..comments2023-10-14T09:40:06.690-05:00Comments on Jean Kazez: Angels and DemonsJean Kazezhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-46514716512812255222009-12-18T12:34:05.323-06:002009-12-18T12:34:05.323-06:00Jason, Read the thread on the thirsty cow. I think...Jason, Read the thread on the thirsty cow. I think you misunderstand him. He is against all "ameliorating reforms," even the major ones like the Humane Slaughter Act and the AWA that clearly have reduced the suffering in today's animal facilities. I think it's morally problematic to keep today's animals in worse conditions, out of a thinly supported worry that humane Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-7201594558435998412009-12-18T11:52:35.261-06:002009-12-18T11:52:35.261-06:00Again, I think you're misrepresenting. His arg...Again, I think you're misrepresenting. His argument is that humane reform does not reduce animal suffering in any significant way, and in fact results in a net increase of suffering, since, he argues, more animals will be killed. Feel free to argue that on its own terms, but to say he wants animals to stay in worse conditions is, I think, unfair, since he literally says the exact opposite in Jasonw3https://www.blogger.com/profile/16613407777972360565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-462194260587195352009-12-15T15:58:54.920-06:002009-12-15T15:58:54.920-06:00"I mean trivialize because you're conside..."I mean trivialize because you're considering only one stakeholder's wants and tastebuds while totally ignoring the other stakeholder's sacrifice (their lives, normal behaviors, freedoms, etc). Making *their* life/death a matter of "oh, *you* just do the best you can" puts all the focus on the one doing the eating while ignoring the ones being eaten - how much more Clayton Littlejohnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05596200828134402805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-70908567236045113312009-12-15T09:58:25.456-06:002009-12-15T09:58:25.456-06:00Jason--
I never said Francione considers sufferin...Jason--<br /><br />I never said Francione considers suffering good. Of course not. <br /><br />I said he wants to keep animals in worse conditions, and he does. He's actively opposed to humane reforms of all kinds. That passage makes it clear why he opposes them--because he thinks humane reform sends the wrong message and increases consumption. Just like I said.<br /><br />By the way--I Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-71884060758582865522009-12-15T09:31:20.855-06:002009-12-15T09:31:20.855-06:00I believe this is why Francione thinks you are mis...I believe this is why Francione thinks you are misrepresenting him. And I would tend to agree. From Francione's website:<br /><br /><br />"Abolitionists are not, as some welfarists claim, inherently opposed to measures that reduce suffering. If we have decided to inflict harm, it is always better to inflict less harm than more harm. But abolitionists are opposed to claiming that it is Jasonw3https://www.blogger.com/profile/16613407777972360565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-4262069574739333182009-12-12T11:23:08.673-06:002009-12-12T11:23:08.673-06:00In radical groups, as you say, individuals don&#...In radical groups, as you say, individuals don't matter: that is the point of Keynes's remark. It's a moral purity thing: those who are in favor of reforms are sell-outs, Uncle Toms, traitors, collaborationists, accomodationists, etc. It's selfish, when one thinks of it, because the radical prefers his or her moral purity, his or her clean hands, to use Sartres. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-8136438376301622982009-12-12T09:22:51.257-06:002009-12-12T09:22:51.257-06:00OK, "all" was going too far. But the sa...OK, "all" was going too far. But the sane approach in lots and lots of cases is both working toward "revolution" and working for "reform." Death penalty abolitionism is a good example.Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-89935946326417667472009-12-12T08:39:50.603-06:002009-12-12T08:39:50.603-06:00The long run is a misleading guide to current affa...The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead.<br /><br />John Maynard Keyness. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-13986225214800409392009-12-12T08:35:07.383-06:002009-12-12T08:35:07.383-06:00It's not true that in all efforts at abolishin...It's not true that in all efforts at abolishing evils there is a parallel effort at reform and revolution. On the radical left many groups refuse to reform capitalism, because they feel that reforming capitalism will delay the inevitable socialist revolution and workers' paradise. <br />That has led to situations such as the refusal of the German Communist Party to make a common causes. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-91092474323543417052009-12-12T07:47:21.692-06:002009-12-12T07:47:21.692-06:00Faust, I think there's a bit more to this than...Faust, I think there's a bit more to this than a disagreement about "what works." There's a question about what animals are entitled to, if you take them seriously. <br /><br />In all cases of "abolition" of human injustices that I can think of, there's parallel effort on reform and revolution. For example, people try to abolish the death penalty while Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-5318147570847479112009-12-11T10:41:54.268-06:002009-12-11T10:41:54.268-06:00Well it's not just Francione is it? Steiner sa...Well it's not just Francione is it? Steiner said re: some of these issues (on the podcast) "that's what we call 'Proposition 2 thinking.'" So this concern about limited changes to animal conditions seems a part of Steiner's philosophy too. <br /><br />Isn't the central disagreement about the moral significance of these small incremental changes? I can see them Faustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-77637754099553118982009-12-11T08:02:16.955-06:002009-12-11T08:02:16.955-06:00"when people's views get diametrically mi..."when people's views get diametrically misrepresented, things go off in the ditch. Saying someone wants animals to remain suffering to help achieve their goals is a bit vile, too, to be fair."<br /><br />I am puzzled by this accusation. "Vile"? "Diametrically misrepresented"? I just don't get it. I carefully explain at the end of <a href="http://Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-60656071829439915492009-12-10T10:57:05.290-06:002009-12-10T10:57:05.290-06:00My thoughts about it are in the next post--if ther...My thoughts about it are in the next post--if there's a problem in that perfectly humane world, it's subtle and reasonable people are going to disagree about whether it exists and how serious it is.Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-45576717787779341752009-12-10T10:47:08.948-06:002009-12-10T10:47:08.948-06:00@Clayton - I mean trivialize because you're co...@Clayton - I mean trivialize because you're considering only one stakeholder's wants and tastebuds while totally ignoring the other stakeholder's sacrifice (their lives, normal behaviors, freedoms, etc). Making *their* life/death a matter of "oh, *you* just do the best you can" puts all the focus on the one doing the eating while ignoring the ones being eaten - how much moreAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-22064603557118905262009-12-09T22:07:40.264-06:002009-12-09T22:07:40.264-06:00Yeah, no killing at all. And good lives (on the wh...Yeah, no killing at all. And good lives (on the whole) are had by all the milk and egg producing animals. True, they are still owned and being used for our sake, but none of this negatively impacts their experience. Nor are they deceived into thinking that they are autonomous because they aren't capable of such thoughts.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05074257624733067171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-1728812858444438152009-12-09T21:43:30.957-06:002009-12-09T21:43:30.957-06:00Are we to think that in that imaginary world, ther...Are we to think that in that imaginary world, there is still some killing going on? In the real world, male dairy calves are killed (for veal) and male chicks are killed (because they have no economic value). <br /><br />Or should we think this as a sort of world where the male cattle are kept alive and roosters are having fun in people's yards? <br /><br />You mean no killing right? So Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-91628169372396931042009-12-09T21:06:51.290-06:002009-12-09T21:06:51.290-06:00That's a really nice post, Jean.
Here's...That's a really nice post, Jean. <br /><br />Here's an undoubtedly ignorant question: if you gave the abolitionists the following gambit, would they not take it? There is a switch they could throw that would bring it about that (i) every human becomes a vegetarian (but not a vegan) and (ii) all milk and eggs come only from animals that are treated humanely (I realize that they might Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05074257624733067171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-15016554144480387312009-12-09T20:50:42.002-06:002009-12-09T20:50:42.002-06:00Clayton, Breath of fresh air! I appreciate it! Ho...Clayton, Breath of fresh air! I appreciate it! Hope all's well with you too.Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-3388818537763398222009-12-09T19:12:22.582-06:002009-12-09T19:12:22.582-06:00Well my position is certainly more in line with yo...Well my position is certainly more in line with your postion. But I'm trying to understand the nature of the disagreements in play between "welfarists" and "abolitionists."<br /><br />The only way I can understand it is if they are maintaining a sense of perfect moral equivalence.<br /><br />That's why they keep bringing in analogies that suggest that this is "Faustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-78002911056206963992009-12-09T16:59:13.501-06:002009-12-09T16:59:13.501-06:00"it sorta seems to trivialize a serious matte..."it sorta seems to trivialize a serious matter when it's framed as a "matter of personal degree"."<br /><br />How does it trivialize a serious matter? It seems like a realistic attitude to take to a very serious matter. Do the best you can seems like good advice and the best you can do for the animals is to try to reach as broad an audience as possible to try to get themClayton Littlejohnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05596200828134402805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-52831098471313604382009-12-09T16:42:35.023-06:002009-12-09T16:42:35.023-06:00Faust, I don't read them that way. It's o...Faust, I don't read them that way. It's only reasonable to countenance both violations of basic rights AND quantities of suffering. Suffering obviously matters, even if it's not the only thing that matters. Differences between animals and humans can be relevant to how much they suffer in a situation, even in cases where those differences aren't relevant to whether a basic right Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-85120788695263030882009-12-09T16:30:32.475-06:002009-12-09T16:30:32.475-06:00By the way, I'm obviously talking about little...By the way, I'm obviously talking about little, traditional farms in the previous posts, not about every conceivable farm that yields food that's labeled "humane." The point is that the intrinsic ethical problems with raising animals for food don't automatically yield welfare problems for the animals. That was probably obvious.Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-53724827028253452982009-12-09T15:55:28.073-06:002009-12-09T15:55:28.073-06:00"If you ignore the differences between people..."If you ignore the differences between people and animals, then of course it's impossible to see this."<br /><br />The key position of the hard-line abolitionists seems to be this:<br /><br />"Sentience is a sufficient condition for establishing a moral worth that is equal across all species." <br /><br />Clearly this moral worth applies to killing in addition to the Faustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-36304414143826135182009-12-09T15:25:31.577-06:002009-12-09T15:25:31.577-06:00No one serious thinker (except Aristotle), as far...No one serious thinker (except Aristotle), as far as I know, has ever claimed that slavery is justified. Bernard Williams, in the book we once discussed Shame and Necessity, makes it very clear that the Greeks in general did not consider slavery to be good and still less something that they would want to undergo themselves. I don't know what apologists for slavery in the U.S. South s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-64720403125646933632009-12-09T15:08:11.852-06:002009-12-09T15:08:11.852-06:00The way I interpret it, "speciesism" is ...The way I interpret it, "speciesism" is bias against members of other species, like sexism is a bias and racism is a bias. Surely we shouldn't be biased. But if we give up our biases, we can still see differences, if they're real. So--see all the differences you want...you just have to cogently argue for them.<br /><br />One difference pertains to slavery. As nice as you mightJean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.com