×
all 6 comments

[–]jlkirsch 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The author seems to make 2 points here:

  • 1) Correlated with or perhaps causally related to an "expanding circle" of moral concern (cf. Peter Singer), we have eliminated moral concern for a) Religion, gods, and the sacred; b) The dead; and c) Future generations.
  • 2) A detachment from religion is directly linked to unethical treatment of animals; religion is necessary or helpful in protecting them.

My responses:

  • 1) The idea behind Singer's "expanding circle" is not to give moral concern to everything, but rather to rid ourselves of biases in determining where to give that concern (for instance, treating murders of people living in foreign countries as being morally equivalent to a murder in one's own town). Part of this doctrine implies that we sort out what entities are worth moral consideration (and the degree of consideration deserved). Until sufficient evidence of conscious super-humans or gods can be produced, it would not be ration to include them in our moral sphere. Outside of how the treatment of things claimed to be sacred has effects on the people believing those claims, there is no intrinsic reason to treat those things differently from normal "non-sacred" ones (again, there is a lack of convincing evidence as to the validity of the claims). Our treatment of the dead is also somewhat tied to effects on people who had cared for those dead and might be emotionally attached to the dead. Outside of those externalities, however, we have no moral obligations to the dead because we are unable to affect them in any way; a dead person is not a "person" in the sense that they have interests or can experience any part of the world. Regarding future generations, I quite agree with the author's point that their needs must be taken into consideration. Unlike the dead, our actions today can indeed affect the lives of future people. Indifference to these entities is not a product of an expanding circle but rather exists in spite of it.
  • 2) The author firstly does not mention the great help religion has been in shaping our current treatment of animals. Virtually all standard doctrines of western religions state that animals have been given to humankind and that we are to rule over them. True, some religious texts have pleas against animal abuse, but the fact remains that religion reinforces the naturalistic fallacy so often used to support humankind's abuse and consumption of animals. All this aside, however, I want to point out what I see as the chief flaw in the author's argument of this point. It is true that some religions may cause people to treat animals nicely. However, including animals into one's moral sphere of concern does not necessitate that one be religious. One may still wish to decrease the circle of concern for gods and religion while at the same time wish to increase the moral concern for animals. To address an example used by the author, Hindus may treat cows in an ethical way, but that does not mean that rejection of Hinduism is equatable to a rejection of treating cows ethically. To summarize, the fact that sections of religious doctrine may overlap with certain parts of the "expanding circles" moral theory is no reason to condone or protect religion itself outside of those sections.

In short, I believe that we need to narrow our circle of concern for entities that do not and never will have sentience while at the same time being sure not to lose what progress has been made (for whatever reason, religious or otherwise).

[–]R_Milhous_Nixon 1 point2 points  (1 child)

What a...special website. The first entry is about how two anime series have plot overlaps and the significance therein. Oh, Internet.

[–]gwern[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You make that sound like a bad thing!

(Alternate comment: 'Oh the irony of a Redditor saying that.')

[–]voidgazing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I find this idea of 'progress' to be a misapprehension. Ethics is not a linear system. Such inevitability as exists in ethical changes is related to the practical benefits and problems of holding an ethic. While there are always groups that do not adhere to the ethics of their supergroup, the loss of material power causes a loss of cultural influence. To wit: slavery in the US ended only when technology made it possible. Slavery exists in many places today where it is economically beneficial. Vegetarianism is hardly a new idea, and its growing popularity in the West depends on the wide availability of foods which come from far and wide, and on the sedentary lifestyle that has rendered the high protein, high calorie diet of our forebears deletrious. In other words, ethics responds to environment, just as do the genomes of organisms. As to removing supernatural entities and ancestors from our "circles" again the author is mired in illusion. Aside from the terrible oversimplification and ethnocentric failure to understand what the gods and ancestors meant to our forefathers, there is the glaring problem of classification. Religion is not a valid division here, for how many live and die in the name of non-religious abstractions? Where Rome had Christ, the Chinese have the Revolution. Where Egypt had a reverence for Osiris, we have a reverence for intellectual progress. The modern morality the author posits is fine with bulldozing a Shinto shrine, but I do wonder how he'd feel if I pointed out the lack of practical benefit in his favorite museum and put a mall up instead.

[–]Rakajj 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I find Peter Singer's arguments very compelling...that being said...I find the counter-arguments to have some appeal as well...namely...bacon.

[–]Dandy-Lion 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well.... they do make veggie bacon. Morning star is pretty good with making substitutes taste like the real thing....

That being said, bacon was the hardest thing to give up for me. Especially bacon and artichoke pizza....