It’s like psychiatrists all being crazy.
Ethicists are all evil.
Like health care practitioners who are overweight and smoke. The real question would be - why do we know but not practice right from wrong.
Basically, her argument is “everyone else is doing it”.
If aliens ever find us, they will find us either amusing or revolting.
“Morally wrong” doesn’t make the bacon taste any less good.
Except we mostly do the right thing. Especially when it is easy. However, nearly everyone does the right thing in those cases and it fades into the background. What you end up noticing are the hard cases.
I’ve met many people who make wonderfully sound arguments against animal agriculture and still indulge in eating animals and animal bi-products. I’ve come to realize that it is one thing to know and quite another thing to know and as a result act. Asking someone to break from tradition is extraordinarily difficult.
I’m having two steaks today in honour of such silliness.
Or American ‘Christians’ saying they follow Jesus, but they don’t do any of the things he mentioned.
It’s like what I learned from my mom when I was growing up: “Do as I say, not as I do.”
“There is none righteous, no, not one.”
Looks like the article is saying, essentially, “because they’re people.”
Socrates, Jesus, Buddha - all creatures of myth and marketing. Inhuman fictions, the lot of 'em.
More modern moral leaders - Ghandi, MLK, even Mother Theresa - are more nuanced, more flawed, more human.
Why wasn’t Ghandi a better person? Well, he was a person, not an unrealistic fiction. Why aren’t ethicists / Christians / Vegans better people? Same story.
I might ask why demand an inhuman and impossible ethical framework, but I think humans have an understandable tendency to inflate their aspirational heroes and dehumanize their excluded villains.
I appreciate the savage carnality of the Greco-Roman pantheon. Horrible yes, but they’re us without the pretense of Old Testament perfection bound to the same horrors.
And yes, i had hoped the summation of the article would because they are human, with human failings. Not that an AI bot wouldn’t run into its own quandaries. Life is not so reductionist. An act can be ethical for one person and unethical for another at the same time.
The beauty of philosophy. You can find a framework that fits you, whatever you are.
Organizations want to hire the scummiest ethicists possible so they have someone who will rubberstamp anything they do.
I read Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation because I had never met an animal rights person who had, and it always puzzled me how people who supposedly cared so very, very much about something would not read the book that should be their Bible. Singer is a regular Josef Mengele who advocates using retarded people for medical experiments and euthanizing people with routine medical problems. I read Animal Liberation simultaneously with Mein Kampf and it was eye opening.
Keep in mind that every psycho and sociopath runs around ranting about what wonderful moral people they are. I’m guessing that there is no psychological screening to keep people like that out of ethics programs.
Is this comment a parody of Conservative beliefs on Planned Parenthood/“Feminism”, or are you seriously trying to create such a caricature of persons who believe in animal rights?
This is an odd thread to try and create some authoritarian figure from whom all beliefs must flow, but i’m not surprised. People have to create their absurdist villains to dismiss counterviews, because they can’t accept the idea that others may possess more nuance in thought and action.
I believe that in large part these are the same people that became anti-vaxxers and that they are also the anti-GMO folks. Many of them are all three, and the ones I’ve come across online have strong psychotic traits.
Your fixation on authoritarians and why vegans do not venerate them so you can tear them down by association is more in line with the pseudoskeptics, sadly.
Being an ethical vegetarian/vegan does not require that you are anti-GMO, anti-vax, anti-science in any manner and it’s a lazy tear-down to a group you hold a grudge against.
Strangely, all you can do is deflect and resort to ad hominems. Ooops.
BTW I didn’t role out of bed looking to trash Peter Singer. The article mentioned him.