This week, as part of the course, there was the requirement to do another presentation. My first one was a disaster, my second was funny but not really very professional and my third is... well, unconventional.
It seems to me that where one decides to start a debate or an argument is critical. The place where one is standing at the beginning shapes to likely trajectory of the discussion more that we are often willing to admit.
For example, although in philosophy there is a need to distinguish facts from values (as an example, it is a fact that many people own iPhones; this does not mean that people 'ought' to own iPhones), the starting place of a debate can, it seems to me, smuggle values into the process. So, if we are to consider 'reducing suffering in factory farmed animals' we are smuggling in an assumption that factory farming isn't just a fact of the world but, to an extent, permissible. That means that we are inclined to limit the argument in certain ways. For example, if factory farming is permissible - or even just the fact of the matter - there is an assumption that animals simply can be treated in ways that it is not appropriate to treat humans.
Now, I think we need to be honest and clear about this. To say, factory farming happens and in my view it is acceptable because x, y and z. Therefore, I am not considering any arguments that rely on values outside this paradigm. Or we could say, factory farming happens and in my view it is deeply problematic because p, q and r. So, I have an overt aim here - to consider what reduce suffering in the short-term until factory farming is abolished. Or we could say, factory farming happens and I think that is totally unacceptable because a, b and c. Therefore it seems to me wrong to try to consider reducing suffering when the only solution is to abolish the practice.
Philosophers like to claim that they are looking at something neutrally, but where their view carries a strong presumption - say, that animals have lower moral status than humans - there are certain arguments that will carry no weight whatsoever with them.
Now I am not saying that everyone has to rehearse their entire moral framework at the start of every argument, but I am saying that these arguments can appear disingenuous at times. That's all.
Comments