Comments - Transcript of Dr. Richard Twine's ARZone LIve Guest Chat - Animal Rights Zone2024-03-29T13:48:23Zhttps://arzone.ning.com/profiles/comment/feed?attachedTo=4715978%3ABlogPost%3A50034&xn_auth=noIt isn't clear to me what mor…tag:arzone.ning.com,2011-07-17:4715978:Comment:529272011-07-17T22:14:29.722ZAlex Melonashttps://arzone.ning.com/profile/AlexMelonas
<p>It isn't clear to me what moral work the claim that David Pearce's project is "hubristic" is doing. It runs, as I understand it: first, the assumption that pain, broadly understood, is bad; moreover, not being in pain is an interest universal to sentient life. Second, we have an obligation to avoid causing pain; moreover, we have an obligation to prevent pain from happening when we are able to do so. Third, carnivores, by their nature, cause tremendous amounts of pain. Fourth, humans…</p>
<p>It isn't clear to me what moral work the claim that David Pearce's project is "hubristic" is doing. It runs, as I understand it: first, the assumption that pain, broadly understood, is bad; moreover, not being in pain is an interest universal to sentient life. Second, we have an obligation to avoid causing pain; moreover, we have an obligation to prevent pain from happening when we are able to do so. Third, carnivores, by their nature, cause tremendous amounts of pain. Fourth, humans <em>may</em> be in a position to reduce or prevent some of that pain from occurring. Therefore, we ought to. That last move isn't "Western rationalist"; it proceeds from two simple and basic, but widely held, assumptions. </p>
<p>I don't understand how this "discredits" veganism. The reverse, however: assuming some kind of value in "nature," as it is; assuming that, for some reason, animals "prefer" to be left alone (i.e., in possibly preventable pain); assuming that there is some value in preserving carnivorous species; and/or mistaking the <em>moral</em> argument for the <em>practical</em> one is discrediting to one's own argument. </p>