When the United States Defence Department has found that its use of beagles to test lethal gases has evoked a howl of protest and offers to use rats instead, I am not appeased.
Peter Singer
I've long been meaning to write more on the issues surrounding meat, if only for my own benefit. Part curiosity, part moral biopsy. To this end and possibly to further procrastination, I grabbed my copy of Peter Singer 's Writings on an Ethical Life and set off on the bus to work.
Singer is a utilitarian and I think utilitarianism is the part of the ethical gallery where secularists always seem to arrive back at. It's an attempt to put a rational framework on ethics above conscience or faith. Nothing wrong with the latter two, unless they're telling you to put someone to the flame, but moral questions have often to be resolved and reason serves us well. Singer's arguments often take things to their logically consistent conclusion and his parallels employing ifs come up hard against many table thumping buts . His arguments on animal rights attract, up to a point obviously, because of their lack of sentiment. This is refreshing, as the debate over the treatment of animals often resembles a dysfunctional custody battle.
He writes clearly but points towards thick books in arcane English and concepts that if I understood them at the time, then I can't remember doing so. Distraction called.
I stopped in at the Alexander Library to have a look at their discarded library book sale. I am both pigeon and step toed. In the group of cookbooks I found the one pictured above and the title The Useful Pig struck me as odd. I assume sense it was meant to be read "the usefulness of pigs" but the use of the definite article and the qualifier implied otherwise. What makes a pig useful, and what makes a pig useless? If it's only its instrumentality, then what are our justifications? And here I'll resolve to make a start on some posts and see where I end up.