I am deciding to limit my intake of meat and slowly ease my way into vegetarianism. I have been seriously considering becoming a vegetarian for a while now. My sister has been one for the past 10 years and all of my roommates are either vegetarian or vegan so they have continuously influenced me to consider it. The reason I am not going to stop eating meat 100% is because I am concerned about the logistics of cooking, shopping, eating out, and getting a good diet without meat. Mylan Engel's article "The Immorality of Eating Meat" certainly influenced this decision. He essentially argues that someone who believes they are a morally good person would take steps to minimize pain in the world. The pain and suffering he is referring to takes place in factory farming, and he argues that people who eat meat encourage the farming as well as the pain. This made sense to me, and I truly like to think I am the type of person to do what I can to make the world a better place. I began to think it was ignorant and selfish to ignore the immense amount of cruelties happening in the farming industry just for the sake of eating meat. However, it's still hard to measure the exact impact I would be making in the world, and I can't fully commit myself to vegetarianism for some reason. However, I will limit my intake of meat from now on and continue to consider becoming completely vegetarian.
Mylan Engel (2000): “The Immorality of Eating Meat”
0 Comments
I live on State Street near Buffalo Wild Wings, and I walk past homeless people everyday. Every single day, I pass them and do not give them anything. As I type this I feel sad because I like to think of myself as a morally good person, and I have a spare dollar to give every once and a while. My reasoning for not giving them money is usually something small like not having enough time, or not having cash on me. My previous decisions of not giving to homeless people would be morally wrong according to many different ethical viewpoints. For example, a virtue ethics perspective would say that a truly virtuous person would often give to the homeless, therefore it would be a morally right action. Furthermore, Thomas Hill explains this by asking what sort of human beings we should be and what sort of character we should have, and I have to believe a good person would give to the homeless. However, there are limitations to how much you can give, and its unclear where that line can be drawn.
A utilitarian would suggest that a person ought to strive towards minimizing pain and suffering in the world, and if pain and suffering can be minimized by giving money to the homeless, then we should do it. I think there are many different cases that could counter the idea that money minimizes suffering among the homeless (for example it could be used for drugs/alcohol) but I think that overall it would help. I now plan to give more to the homeless when I get the chance. Thomas Hill (1983): “Ideals of Human Excellence and Preserving Natural Environments”, reprinted in Schmitz and Willott (eds), Environmental Ethics – What Really Matters, What Really Works (2nd edition) James Rachels: “The Utilitarian Approach” and “The Debate Over Utilitarianism”, in The Elements of Moral Philosophy (6th edition by Stuart Rachels) Last night, I decided to skip water polo practice. Even though I was planning on going all day, I changed my mind last minute. I knew most of my friends weren't going due to sickness and exams, and I am also sick and behind in schoolwork. I thought it would be less stressful to stay home and catch up on work and sleep. I went to practice on Monday as well so I didn't have to skip both practices during the week. However, I have never played water polo and every practice helps me learn and practice the game so I can catch up to everyone who is experienced; so when I skip, I feel guilty and stressed about the sport. Also, I always feel much better about myself after practice, and I have fun with the girls there. After this reflection, I believe I would have been happier if I went to practice; exercise always helps my mood and I felt lazy when I didn't go. A simple consequentialist point of view would suggest that an action is right if it produces the best overall outcome, and assuming that I went to practice, got some of my work done, and slept for a few hours, that would have been the best outcome.
Samuel Scheffler (1988): “Introduction”, in Consequentialism and its Critics Today, I was at work, and as I was walking to the stand to sit and lifeguard, I saw a bug on the pool deck. It was big and I jumped when I saw it. I turned around and got my shoe, then smushed it and threw it away. I didn't consider the intrinsic value or moral status that the bug may or may not have had before I smushed it. I decided not to let it be because a part of my job is to keep the pool deck clean and the patrons safe and happy, so I just did what I thought I had to do by killing it. But now as I reflect on it, I realize it would have been almost just as easy to save the bug and put it outside. Biocentric Individualism extends moral status to all living things, which would have included the bug that I smushed; therefore according to this viewpoint, I did something wrong. To support this, Gary Varner says that these individuals have moral status because they have interests, like eating and staying alive. Environmental individualism also gives bugs moral status and intrinsic value because it includes all natural individuals, even rocks. So again, I did something wrong. When it comes to the example of actively avoiding to step on a bug, my situation differed because I had an obligation and a role to take care of it. I could have easily saved it and put it outside, and I think I should have.
Gary Varner (2002): “Biocentric Individualism” Today, I had to go to work as a lifeguard at the NCRB. It was a special shift so all the lifeguards had to go, and I had the option of riding with my friend in her car to north campus, or to take the bus like I usually do. I decided to get a ride from my friend today because it was easier, saved me time, and I hadn't seen her in a while so we got the chance to catch up. When making this decision, it didn't cross my mind that I might be impacting the environment. However, taking the bus obviously helps our environment because it means less people are driving cars and causing pollution. So while it's true that taking the bus would have been better than taking a car, my friend was planning on taking her car regardless if she took me or not, so it's likely it would not have made much of a difference, other than the extra block she drove to get me. From a virtue ethics point of view, it is likely that I did the wrong thing because a truly virtuous person would take the bus over taking a car, or they might even ride a bike or walk. A consequentialist might say my decision was acceptable because my friend and I were able to bond and save time/stress because we took the car. The consequence of my happiness was worth more than the effects on the environment, especially because the car was going to be driven either way.
James Rachels: “The Utilitarian Approach” and “The Debate Over Utilitarianism”, in The Elements of Moral Philosophy (6th edition by Stuart Rachels) Samuel Scheffler (1988): “Introduction”, in Consequentialism and its Critics |