A journey to understand the hidden prejudice that nobody takes seriously.

  • stratoscaster
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Y’know I wonder if Rawl’s original position would technically apply here. Part of the veil of ignorance requires you to be sentient and intelligent enough to understand the consequences either way. I think that the 1st imperative might apply better in this case.

    Plus people can’t really imagine what it’s like to be a pig. 🐷

    • Vegoon@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Obviously everyone is limited by the scope of understanding they have right now, I could not decide what is best for everyone in every situation and the view of the world changes over time in society.

      Rawls did not consider many issues but I think that makes it easier: It is not you or me in our current situation who decides, you and me are already human so we have to decide before we are anybody and at that point we have none of those limits. If at this point you don’t want to experience suffering or injustice what prevents the you you are now to not inflict suffering and injustice on others?

      Yes, you could become one with lower intelligence so maybe you decide to give them the best possibilities they can have in live. With even distribution you are 10 times more likely to end in cage an be killed than to end up as any human, it takes little imagination to see that its not desirable.

      Martha Nussbaum (Justice for animals - absolute recommended read) has some good points on the shortcomings of the veil of ignorance, not invalidating but refining. She takes it and extends the thought of freedom and independence with fairness. A fairness that is not required by Rawls because in his scenario everyone has the same abilities.

      Not to disagree with the usage of Kant, it is obviously valid. I personally lean more towards Kohlbergs theory of moral because I think it provides more depth, nuance. For the point made in the video I think Rawls is a good fit.

      • stratoscaster
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        +1 for philosophy buffness

        I mean the main issue, even regardless of the valid points you’re making, is that if people don’t even care about their fellow man then hoping for animal equality is a bit of a crapshoot. I really hope that we develop safe alternatives that are appealing to the masses soon.

        • jerkface@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          The alternatives that are available (ie, pulses, nuts, seeds, roots, tubers, grains, vegetables, bark, fruit, buds, flowers, minerals, fungi, bacteria cultures, products of fermentation, even fuckin lichen, moss and ferns if you want) are not “unappealing” due to any intrinsic qualities they possess or do not possess. People have been manipulated into being habituated to a cruel, toxic, and destructive diet. Once a human is habituated to a diet, they resist change. Giving them more “appealing” products won’t change that, unless capital decides it is better for the masses to be habituated to a new set of products.