Roget’s Thesaurus(5th Ed) includes utilitarianism in its entry for benevolence. Well, here are some thoughts. The greatest good for the greatest number is a useful conceptual framework, but it’s definitely not the only one.
For example, you might in some situations value the life and well-being of your wife or girlfriend or your mom over that of 10 or even 100 strangers. As a vegan, I would in various situations value the life of one human being, even a stranger, over that of my cat, or for example, 10 or 100 chickens, pigs, or horses, (barring cases where that human exhibited extraordinary malevolence–ie Hitler, Stalin, serial killers, and so on).
Our intuitive and emotional faculties are inextricably linked to our rational faculties. Our subjectivity is inescapable; even if we were infallible and all-knowing, our emotional attachments— whereby we care more about some ‘persons’ than others—would prevent us from fully pursuing the greatest good for the greatest number.
As for veganism, I’ve been trying to expand my regard for ‘others’ and make it more consistent, not perfect. Ironically, given the claim vegans are overly emotional, if I were to more fully pursue utilitarianism, I probably would be trying to use my rational faculties as if my emotional ones didn’t exist. That is, is it possible, not to mention desirable, for me to get beyond my bias which favors humans over other sentient species?
That bias in favor of humans, I would guess, is in the final analysis emotional, not rational. Humans might seem better or more important to me, given that I myself am human. Religions and philosophies exhibit that most humans believe we are more important or better than other species. But science—with which we recognize differences among species, instead of making value judgments—does not support this. Sure, science involves our biases, but that’s a deviation from the Scientific method, not one of its constituents. Say if you think I’m incorrect.
Here’s an idea. Don’t agree with it, but it’s food for thought: humans are inferior to other life forms in that we seem to be the only species risking the destruction of all life on Earth.
As for ‘speciesism,’ the term, like some other isms, denotes a situation where, for example, a person has exhausted —or more often has neglected to look at seriously — arguments to support a belief or behavior, and is instead relying on as a last resort justification, “because we’re human and they’re not.”
Suggest a distinction between : (1) acknowledging my own likely inescapable bias in favor of fellow humans; and (2) embracing the claim–which science does not support—that humans are better or more important than other species.
Also, if someone rejects or calls into doubt the claim humans are superior, it’s not necessarily the case s/he believes in the inferiority or relative unimportance of his/her own species or that s/he hates humans. In fact, animal liberation may turn out to be a part of enlightened human self-interest. What do you think? What will you do ?
//
Leave a Reply