Thought Catalog

Rutgers University Professor Calls For “Controlled Extinction” of Meat-Eating Animals

  • 0

A recent online-only op-ed, published in “the Stone,” the New York Times’ “forum for contemporary philosophers on issues both timely and timeless,” caught my attention. I think it caught my attention because it doesn’t seem to make much sense.

The op-ed, called “The Meat Eaters,” is by a heavily bearded Rutgers philosophy professor named Jeff McMahon. He proposes that if it could be done without messing up the earth’s ecological systems, it would be moral to gradually phase out/kill off all carnivorous animal species – since they cause pain and suffering by killing other animals – or to genetically engineer them to evolve into herbivorous species.

McMahon acknowledges various plausible arguments against his idea. One argument is that killing off carnivorous species would be “playing God.” But we wouldn’t be playing God if we were to kill all carnivorous animal species, McMahon says, because “one plays God, for example, if one administers a lethal injection to a patient at her own request in order to end her agony, but not if one gives her a largely ineffective analgesic only to mitigate the agony, though knowing that it will kill her as a side effect.” Huh?

McMahon also refutes the argument that eradicating all carnivorous animals would be “against Nature.” He claims we don’t have a moral “requirement” to act to stop pain and suffering due to animals killing other animals, but we have a moral “reason.” And it’s OK to act on that reason as long as we don’t cause more pain than the pain we’re trying to stop.

Finally, McMahon responds to the argument that killing off all the carnivorous species might kind of eff up our ecological systems by writing that maybe there’s some way that it…wouldn’t do that (via Technologies of the Future).

McMahon is religious, and either seems to presuppose that the other philosophers with whom he is in dialogue are also religious or that those millions who don’t believe in a Supreme Being are simply irrelevant.

My suggestion is that philosophical discussion of moral issues and ethics can occur with much less questionable assumptions and convoluted, dubious rhetoric and semantics. For example, McMahon uses a poetic, metaphorical excerpt from the Bible, the prophecy of Isaiah, “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb,” etc., as a basis for justifying a highly hypothetical, logistically and morally challenging, kind of insane-seeming idea. McMahon talks about “fulfilling Isaiah’s prophecy” as if Isaiah had written a literal vision of the future (“For the wolves and lambs and lions shall be as bros to one another, and shall lie in a contented heap on a picnic blanket in Central Park, and they shall chill out with the eating each other thing”).

At another point in the article, after admitting that it seems kind of bad to wipe out a species, or a bunch of species, McMahon then backtracks and says, essentially, but what is a species, anyway? He argues that clumping a bunch of animals together that happen to share similar traits is kind of an arbitrary thing. Plus, maybe we could inject the lions with chemicals that make them infertile or something, in which case the lions alive now are totally fine, it’s just there won’t be any more of them ever again.

I don’t know. I don’t like being snarky. But I think in the context of philosophy and ethics an argument becomes ridiculous rhetoric if logic is only selectively maintained. TC mark

Image via
Powered by Revcontent

Severe(d): A Creepy Poetry Collection

I used to get butterflies when I looked at you, but now they feel more like maggots feasting away on the heart you slaughtered.

More From Thought Catalog

Rutgers University Professor Calls For “Controlled Extinction” of Meat-Eating Animals is cataloged in , , , , , , , , ,
  • Todd

    Furst

  • http://www.facebook.com/jordangillespie Jordan Gillespie

    Seems reasonable. Don't want to be turned into skinny ass vegan though.

  • tao

    the systematic extinction of all vegetables to prevent their suffering at the hands of 'widespread' herbivores

    • http://popserial.tumblr.com stephen

      someone in the comments section of the op-ed pointed out that there is evidence conscious animals aren't the only ones who experience pain, citing “evidence that carrots scream when picked.” lol

  • http://steveroggenbuck.com steve roggenbuck

    bros like this are just tryin to get face, and it is tiring… peter singer said it would be good to create chickens who didn't have brains, so they could be exploited without feeling pain. and how it would be ok for humans to fuck them if they wanted, because it wouldn't matter because of utilitarianism..

    people come up with their ethics philosophy, which is never totally accurate to how they actually feel about what is right and wrong, but it sounds good, 'maximize happiness, minimize pain.' and then they come up with hypothetical situations like this to draw attention to their interesting ethics philosophy, half as a gimmick and half because they actually believe it.. for me it points out how unnecessary and potentially hurtful that practice of formulating external philosophies is… people start shutting out what they actually feel, and start referring to an external philosophy (or ideology) instead. one thing i've appreciated about buddhism is that included in buddhism is the idea that you should not stick to anything outside yourself, not even buddhism

  • http://steveroggenbuck.com steve roggenbuck

    bros like this are just tryin to get face, and it is tiring… peter singer said it would be good to create chickens who didn't have brains, so they could be exploited without feeling pain. and how it would be ok for humans to fuck them if they wanted, because it wouldn't matter because of utilitarianism..

    people come up with their ethics philosophy, which is never totally accurate to how they actually feel about what is right and wrong, but it sounds good, 'maximize happiness, minimize pain.' and then they come up with hypothetical situations like this to draw attention to their interesting ethics philosophy, half as a gimmick and half because they actually believe it.. for me it points out how unnecessary and potentially hurtful that practice of formulating external philosophies is… people start shutting out what they actually feel, and start referring to an external philosophy (or ideology) instead. one thing i've appreciated about buddhism is that included in buddhism is the idea that you should not stick to anything outside yourself, not even buddhism

    • Todd

      Peter Singer is such a douche bag, and pretty dumb too.

  • BenSaucier

    Would this include destroying all humans who feast on McDoubles?

    • http://popserial.tumblr.com stephen

      mcmahon says:

      “Our own form of predation is of course more refined than those of other meat-eaters, who must capture their prey and tear it apart as it struggles to escape. We instead employ professionals to breed our prey in captivity and prepare their bodies for us behind a veil of propriety, so that our sensibilities are spared the recognition that we too are predators, red in tooth if not in claw (though some of us, for reasons I have never understood, do go to the trouble to paint their vestigial claws a sanguinary hue). The reality behind the veil is, however, far worse than that in the natural world. Our factory farms, which supply most of the meat and eggs consumed in developed societies, inflict a lifetime of misery and torment on our prey, in contrast to the relatively brief agonies endured by the victims of predators in the wild. From the moral perspective, there is nothing that can plausibly be said in defense of this practice. To be entitled to regard ourselves as civilized, we must, like Isaiah’s morally reformed lion, eat straw like the ox, or at least the moral equivalent of straw.”

      • http://popserial.tumblr.com stephen

        to answer your question, he's only talking about a 'controlled extinction' of animals who eat animals in the wild, not humans.

blog comments powered by Disqus