More on Moral Philosophy
This discussion of moral philosophy has reminded me how hard it is to find absolutes in this subject. Of course, this is what Nietzsche meant when we wrote (Twilight of the Idols, 1889), “There are altogether no moral facts.” Perhaps one can look at ethical positions relative to one another on a normal distribution curve, where, though there are extremes at either end, most people fit somewhere in the middle.
Consider our positions on animal rights:
Extreme: I tutor a kid who seems kind and sensitive to people, but whose family hunts game animals as sport, leaving the carcasses lying on the forest floor. Some people torment animals immediately before killing and eating them because this creates a chemical state that makes their flesh taste good. Now, most people consider these things reprehensible, as we assign a certain level of rights to animals that such actions clearly violate.
Fat part of the curve—of which I consider myself a member: Unless there is what I consider a compelling reason to do otherwise, I go out of my way to treat all living things with compassion. I take care not to walk on bugs that lie in my path. But I shoot squirrels because the holes they dig present a danger to our horses. I support the use of animals as test subjects if there is no other way to develop a product that is essential to the health and safety of humankind.
Extreme: Jainists refuse to cause any deliberate harm to any sentient creatures, regardless of the circumstances. This, however, creates consequences that most people would find hard to live with, e.g., disease-causing vermin.
It seems to me that when we argue about animal rights—or a great number of other ethical matters: the punishment of criminals, the imperative to help the poor, abortion, etc.–all we’re really doing it pointing to a part of a bell curve and saying, “I am here.”
- Craig Shields
