Apr
8
Is Morality Real?
Filed Under Featured, Mindful Ideas | 2 Comments
The title of this article should cause at least some of you to leap out of your chair, point accusingly at your computer, and shout, “How dare you! Of course morality is real. What kind of a silly person are you to suggest such a thing?” Quite right! Most people feel exactly as you do, and find a question like whether morality is real to be utterly absurd. We make moral choices every day. We have moral disagreements and ponder moral questions. How could all of that simply be made up?
Allow me to attempt to draw back the curtain and reveal morality’s true colors. First, we must be clear about what we mean by the statement that morality is real. We turn briefly to the well-known philosopher (which does not mean famous by any stretch), Geoffrey Sayre-McCord. He offers the notion that when we say morality is real, we mean that moral claims, when literally construed, are literally true. On this account, when I say “Murder is wrong,” and that is intended to be taken literally (rather than hypothetically or as citing a social norm) it is literally true, independently of what anyone thinks or feels about it.
We should note that not all “real” things are this way. Using Sayre-McCord’s account, laws are real in that we take them to be literally true and applicable to all of us. However, we rightly acknowledge that laws depend on the norms of a society. They are not real in the way we seem to think morality is. Whether murder is illegal depends on a society’s laws, but whether murder is wrong seems not to depend on anything, other than its factual truth. But what could this mean?
This means that if morality is real in the way we seem to think it is, then the truth of moral claims is mind-independent. Moral facts, which validate moral claims, exist independently of any evidence for them, thoughts about them, or feelings toward them. Here, then, is the rub. If moral facts are mind-independent, what the hell are they? Do they float about the room, waiting to be revealed by someone’s immoral acts? Are they somehow built into the natural facts of a situation, and if so, in what way? Those who claim morality is real must answer these questions.
These types of questions are likely far more interesting to the philosopher. Most normal people would change little about our daily moral decisions if it were suddenly revealed that morality either is or isn’t real. Either way, morality seems to matter, and it seems to be here to stay. What is significant, however, is what actually might change if morality was shown not to be real. Moral disputes might take on a different flavor, and they might cease to have the voracity that we often see in genuine moral disagreement. If morality is not real, what are we arguing about?
The key to this discussion, with regard to everyday ethics, is to be aware of what we mean when we talk about morality being real, and what implications this has. If we cite moral facts that we believe in as support for a particular view, and if we believe this is because moral facts are real, we must also be prepared to defend an account of their realness. This is not easy, and realizing the challenge we face will likely help us to be more tolerant of those with whom we disagree. Even if we maintain that our views are supported by the reality of moral facts, the puzzling nature of these facts makes it easier to understand why we do not all hold identical views.
Apr
6
As both an animal lover and an aspiring environmental steward, I am often troubled by the way that I eat. Much of my food travels hundreds of miles before reaching my table, and some of it represents a phenomenal commitment of resources and much animal suffering. Most often, people focus on meat eating as the most relevant intersection of diet and ethics. However, there are equally interesting moral questions about eating vegetables, grains, and dairy products. My hope is to consider a common moral question related to eating habits, as well as two less common questions, and conclude by providing some feasible alternatives that don’t require as much effort as you may think.
Meat eating is the most glaring ethical question related to our diets. Animals suffer horribly in our modern confinement agriculture system, and there is no moral justification for such pain. Sadly, much of the justification for confinement practices is economic, and moral questions remain on the sidelines. In addition, meat production uses a huge amount of resources, specifically land and grain that could be more efficiently utilized for better purposes. The most obvious solution is to stop eating meat.
However, this issue is far more complicated than the standard vegetarian response would suggest. For example, many individuals who chastise eaters of beef, pork, and other agricultural animals will happily dine on fish and crustaceans. Consider the following example, offered by Professor Bernard Rollin. Dr. Rollin was eating dinner with a Buddhist monk at a local restaurant here in Fort Collins, Colorado. Dr. Rollin ordered a shrimp dish, while the monk feasted on steak. Dr. Rollin found it odd for someone who is so interested in the cessation of suffering to eat beef. The monk wisely pointed out that the cow from whom his steak came can feed many individuals, while Dr. Rollin’s platter of shrimp represented the loss of twenty lives for a single meal. It seems that if animal suffering is a moral issue, the size of the animals that we eat is also significant.
The vegetarian still feels justified, because his diet ends no lives at all. Sadly, this is a failure to recognize how agriculture works. Each time a field is plowed so that it can be reseeded, numerous animals die. Just because they are mostly rodents does not make their suffering less important than cow and pig suffering, unless the vegetarian can identify some morally relevant difference between these animals. The idea that animals do not suffer so that you can eat tofu is simply untrue, and it leads to a false sense of moral superiority.
What is the solution to this conundrum, where both vegetarian and omnivorous diets cause immense animal pain? First, we can recognize these realities so that we are clear about what is really happening with regard to the production of our food. Second, we can make a distinction between what morality suggests, and what we have to do in order to survive and also meet certain ends that are important to us.
Morality seems to suggest that we should minimize pain for sentient beings, but in reality, we must eat. Not everyone can tend a hydroponic garden in their home, so if we are to have the other goods in life that we want, some amount of suffering is inevitable. However, we can make good choices about where our meat comes from, choosing to limit meat consumption and avoid mass produced meat products in favor of meat that has been produced responsibly and with consideration for the animals involved. We can also encourage hydroponic agriculture, which I personally don’t hear much about, but which seems to avoid some of the concerns regarding animal death associated with field tillage.
Finally, we can share our knowledge with others, especially those who advance the false notions that vegetarian diets don’t promote animal suffering or that meat animals don’t really suffer in a morally relevant way. Much of our failed practices are the result of false beliefs, and if one truly cares about being an ethical eater, challenging these beliefs is arguably the most productive strategy