Ethics Dissertation, Part One: THE RECKONING

[Guest guest]

There is a philosophical stance called Ethical Tolerance. This asserts

that one need not be perfect as long as one's intent is good. This means

that, say, it's all right for a Vegan to have eaten, say, fried rice done

in chicken broth, if the makers of the rice lie to the Vegan. (In Islam,

eating pork sends you to hell, period, even if you don't know you're

eating it; similar punishments exist in Kosher dietary restrictions, etc.)

 

Now, an examination of how we're forced to live by our society shows that

it would be ludicrous to expect anyone to let termites, ants, mice, or

what ever vermin destroy their house on the grounds that they should

respect all life. You might, perhaps, seek a method of ridding yourself

of the pests that either doesn't kill or kills mercifully, but if this isn'

t possible, ethical tolerance would state that larger concerns apply and

so, in a relative way, it's perfectly ethical for someone to rid

themselves and their homes of pests.

 

Had Gandhi been infested by, say, lice, he would certainly have used

tar-based shampoo to rid himself of them, even though this would kill the

lice on him.

 

There is a famous story about Albert Schweitzer using sugar trails to lead

an infestation of ants out of his bungalow in the jungle. This story is

used to show how compassionate he was to all life, etc. Well, that's bunk.

Truth is, he was doing the practical thing. Had he tried to kill them

he would have found the infestation growing. Everyone there knows the

best thing to hope for, or to bring about, is another source of food for

the ants, so they move on by themselves. This is what he did by providing

trails of sugar to lead them away. It was practical jungle living, not

some overarching saintly compassion.

 

So in some circumstances it's possible that the compassionate thing

coincides with the practical thing. In North America, using sugar trails

to lead an ant infestation away is just not going to work, and where would

one lead them, to the neighbor's? Unethical, that. So we see that

societal norms affect what's ethical.

 

Now how about giving up honey because the apiaries are cruel to bees?

Seems to me the honey harvesters could indeed find better, less cruel ways

to pursue their goals. This means that boycotting honey until the farmers

change to kinder methods is a perfectly good move.

 

Same with, for instance, Sir Paul McCartney's recent words against KFC's

cruelty to its chickens. He pointed out that, even if one wishes to eat

chicken, supporting the worst of the methods is unethical. He's right.

And by the way, one's palate isn't an excuse for continuing to patronize

KFC. Saying, " But I don't like any other kind of chicken, " is babyish and

self-indulgent.

 

I became a vegetarian for health reasons. Soon the ethical reasons grew

on me, as I began to realize that avoiding meat had blessed my actions

with a kind of grace. I'd chosen health, but had ended up also being

ethical and compassionate about animal suffering as a result. This

pleases me. Dual benefits like this are rare enough in life.

 

My eldest son is a Vegan, and very ethical in all other spheres of his

life, too. He practices Ethical Tolerance out of necessity -- he won't

knowingly eat animal products, but if some unscrupulous moron slips animal

products into some food he eats, he won't beat himself up over it. He

will, once he finds out, simply avoid that person, company, and food from

then on. It's all any of us could do, or expect, really.

 

 

On Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 11:58 PM,

wrote:

 

> Message: 1

> Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:07:40 -0000

> " Sheryl " <ssarndt

> cotton and vegan questions

>

>> Honey I can live without. I have a problem with cotton.

>

>

> What is wrong with cotton?

>

> Is it because they pour pesticides on it and kill off the cotton

> weevils and the other bugs???

>

> This is one reason I don't ever think I will call myself " vegan " .

> Even organic farmers kill off the bugs that kill their crops. If I

> eat such food products, can I still be called a vegan?? Technically

> the bugs are being killed with intent.

>

> What if I have my house sprayed for termites or carpenter ants?

> Technically it's cruel and malicious intent and bugs are getting

> killed to save my house just like the bees are getting injured to

> harvest the honey.

> What about all the mosquitoes we swat when they try to eat us

> alive? Is this a vegan thing to do??

>

> I'm not trying to be mean, but these are questions I've thought

> about and reasons I would not call myself " vegan " . The terminology

> and definition implies something far more perfect than I could

> achieve. Even if I discontinued eating all animal products, I think

> I will always be a vegetarian.

Strength of stone, refreshing water,

In peaceful place of green.

Strength of water, fresher flowering,

Peaceful stone has ever been.

Strength of growth, refreshing stone,

Peace of water to be seen.

--Chris Warwick, Black Crow

Welsh Druid

[Guest guest]

Well said. Thank you!!

 

 

> There is a philosophical stance called Ethical Tolerance. This

asserts

> that one need not be perfect as long as one's intent is good.