Arbitrary "Lines" in Ecology, Ethics, and Animal Rights. (Vegan)
07 May 2016 [link youtube]
To say something is arbitrary doesn't mean that it's evil, nor that it's even wrong. Especially in the habitat-conservation approach to animal rights, we often deal with distinctions that are entirely arbitrary, and entirely man-made.
Youtube Automatic Transcription
yo what's up sometimes I say I'm going
to make a short video and then about 15 minutes into it I regret that I said that at the beginning but this is a pretty narrowly defined topic I want to address in this one monologue so I think it should be short in politics in political science what is arbitrary is not necessarily evil the fact that something is arbitrary doesn't mean it's wrong doesn't mean it's bad and doesn't mean it's ineffective I think you'll see why I raised this issue if you stick with me for just a minute here one of the real strengths of habitat conservation as a paradigm as an approach to social change to saving the world whatever you want to say within ecology habitat conservation relies on laws that are very simple and very arbitrary so you have 10 people in a room looking at a map they take a pencil and they draw a line on that map the line may be completely arbitrary on one side of the line cutting down a tree is a criminal offence on the other side of the line it's completely permissible so you have an arbitrary legal distinction that saves the lives of animals that preserves habitats that may have many more complex downstream effects we use this term in ecology downstream effects knock-on effects in direct positive effects but fundamentally you are talking about something that is arbitrary that is human created it's you know we over use this concept so much of speciesism you know yeah these are ideas human beings have their anthropocentric whatever you want to say nobody went out and interviewed the animals in the forest it's probably not going to be based on any kind of biological fact that can be dug up in the earth and proven scientifically human beings come together they have a convention they have a debate they have some kind of political process preferably democratic and then decide okay guys here's the square on the map inside that square nobody's allowed to cut down any trees nobody to kill any animals vegans are very often criticized for relying on arbitrary moral distinctions um by vegetarians by flexitarian by people who have some kind of intermediate position I'm left-wing social justice types who maybe share some of the aspirations for a better world with vegans but who are not willing to buy into the ethical and ecological underpinnings of veganism in 21st century they will point out things such as they will argue that look there are many many types of harm there are many many types of damage being done to the world and you as a vegan you have arbitrarily drawn a line and you said this is the harm i'm willing to tolerate and this other harm i'm not willing to tolerate this is what i'm willing to be complicit in and this is something else is not now what examples they choose to use it doesn't really matter they may say well you know mercury mercury pollution is a big problem and you as a vegan you don't do anything about it yes say your line is drawn in a way that doesn't relate that they may raise some of these really boring examples of what about the exploited laborers on fruit farms they may raise the issue of pesticides and this is also interesting but you know yup vegans we certainly tolerate pesticides along with longer throw with the rest the recipe whether or not some vegans want to pretend we don't kill insects so this sort of person if they're inclined towards sort of social justice view of the world their complaint may be that this is arbitrary and I think the real profound response to that is to say yes in politics many many distinctions are arbitrary but arbitrary doesn't mean evil arbitrary doesn't mean wrong the question is is it effective now when you get into the morality of war there are often arbitrary standards of Human Rights the seemed unbelievable you know why are you not allowed to place artillery guns on a riverbank it why why is this torture and something else is not torture but the fundamental achievement you have to struggle for is having a written agreement having a convention like the Geneva Convention having a written convention where ten people have set stood around a table and said okay let's decide what's torture even if what they decide is wrong even if the definition they use is terrible at least you have that fundamental first step of people agreeing there is a line we're going to draw a line even if incorrectly even if arbitrarily and you can negotiate the details later you can move the line later you can say you know what when we came up with this convention nobody thought about giving prisoners mind-altering drugs which there's a scary history of anyway you know um I did some research on that in the history of China 20th century China of you know people being put in prisons and drugged it's ugly it's a form of torture okay so you know our original definition of torture maybe it only dealt with cruel and unusual punishment but now we need to think about what that really means we need to elaborate this we need to draw the line more clearly what have you the ethics of war and combat these things were designed at a time when satellites were not located in outer space when many many things the world changed okay we need to reconsider this we need to debate and so on the fact that the line is arbitrary doesn't invalidate that discourse on the contrary it's the most fundamental basis for the whole discourse there's a saying in political science in debating legislature people like to say many people have said this is not a quote from one man so if you google it you might see it your own person all legislation is based on animus animus is a fancy word basically for hatred and the point saying that is look if I'm in a debate with you and you say to me look your law is arbitrary because it's based on animus for something it's based on the fact that you personally hate and fear or something you're just against it you're against exploitation of cows but there's some other issue you're not against that may be true maybe all right maybe vegans just inexplicably have an animus against the dairy industry maybe so maybe people who quit smoking just have an animus against tobacco maybe it's based on animus but the point is that does not invalidate the discourse you can say back oh all legislation is based on animus issues of arbitrary distinctions are not the end of ethical discourse they are the beginning but for vegans were not yet even at that stage we're at the stage of trying to get the ten people gathered around the table to draw the line of trying to call the convention of trying to make people aware this is an issue for modern civilization as fundamental as the ethics of war as fundamental of the as the use of torture as the fundamental as the conditions of prisoners and jails we need to be drawing a line and we can draw that line ten times until we get it right but we're shifting from a view of the world that refused to accept that any such line could exist to a view of the world that such a line must exist
to make a short video and then about 15 minutes into it I regret that I said that at the beginning but this is a pretty narrowly defined topic I want to address in this one monologue so I think it should be short in politics in political science what is arbitrary is not necessarily evil the fact that something is arbitrary doesn't mean it's wrong doesn't mean it's bad and doesn't mean it's ineffective I think you'll see why I raised this issue if you stick with me for just a minute here one of the real strengths of habitat conservation as a paradigm as an approach to social change to saving the world whatever you want to say within ecology habitat conservation relies on laws that are very simple and very arbitrary so you have 10 people in a room looking at a map they take a pencil and they draw a line on that map the line may be completely arbitrary on one side of the line cutting down a tree is a criminal offence on the other side of the line it's completely permissible so you have an arbitrary legal distinction that saves the lives of animals that preserves habitats that may have many more complex downstream effects we use this term in ecology downstream effects knock-on effects in direct positive effects but fundamentally you are talking about something that is arbitrary that is human created it's you know we over use this concept so much of speciesism you know yeah these are ideas human beings have their anthropocentric whatever you want to say nobody went out and interviewed the animals in the forest it's probably not going to be based on any kind of biological fact that can be dug up in the earth and proven scientifically human beings come together they have a convention they have a debate they have some kind of political process preferably democratic and then decide okay guys here's the square on the map inside that square nobody's allowed to cut down any trees nobody to kill any animals vegans are very often criticized for relying on arbitrary moral distinctions um by vegetarians by flexitarian by people who have some kind of intermediate position I'm left-wing social justice types who maybe share some of the aspirations for a better world with vegans but who are not willing to buy into the ethical and ecological underpinnings of veganism in 21st century they will point out things such as they will argue that look there are many many types of harm there are many many types of damage being done to the world and you as a vegan you have arbitrarily drawn a line and you said this is the harm i'm willing to tolerate and this other harm i'm not willing to tolerate this is what i'm willing to be complicit in and this is something else is not now what examples they choose to use it doesn't really matter they may say well you know mercury mercury pollution is a big problem and you as a vegan you don't do anything about it yes say your line is drawn in a way that doesn't relate that they may raise some of these really boring examples of what about the exploited laborers on fruit farms they may raise the issue of pesticides and this is also interesting but you know yup vegans we certainly tolerate pesticides along with longer throw with the rest the recipe whether or not some vegans want to pretend we don't kill insects so this sort of person if they're inclined towards sort of social justice view of the world their complaint may be that this is arbitrary and I think the real profound response to that is to say yes in politics many many distinctions are arbitrary but arbitrary doesn't mean evil arbitrary doesn't mean wrong the question is is it effective now when you get into the morality of war there are often arbitrary standards of Human Rights the seemed unbelievable you know why are you not allowed to place artillery guns on a riverbank it why why is this torture and something else is not torture but the fundamental achievement you have to struggle for is having a written agreement having a convention like the Geneva Convention having a written convention where ten people have set stood around a table and said okay let's decide what's torture even if what they decide is wrong even if the definition they use is terrible at least you have that fundamental first step of people agreeing there is a line we're going to draw a line even if incorrectly even if arbitrarily and you can negotiate the details later you can move the line later you can say you know what when we came up with this convention nobody thought about giving prisoners mind-altering drugs which there's a scary history of anyway you know um I did some research on that in the history of China 20th century China of you know people being put in prisons and drugged it's ugly it's a form of torture okay so you know our original definition of torture maybe it only dealt with cruel and unusual punishment but now we need to think about what that really means we need to elaborate this we need to draw the line more clearly what have you the ethics of war and combat these things were designed at a time when satellites were not located in outer space when many many things the world changed okay we need to reconsider this we need to debate and so on the fact that the line is arbitrary doesn't invalidate that discourse on the contrary it's the most fundamental basis for the whole discourse there's a saying in political science in debating legislature people like to say many people have said this is not a quote from one man so if you google it you might see it your own person all legislation is based on animus animus is a fancy word basically for hatred and the point saying that is look if I'm in a debate with you and you say to me look your law is arbitrary because it's based on animus for something it's based on the fact that you personally hate and fear or something you're just against it you're against exploitation of cows but there's some other issue you're not against that may be true maybe all right maybe vegans just inexplicably have an animus against the dairy industry maybe so maybe people who quit smoking just have an animus against tobacco maybe it's based on animus but the point is that does not invalidate the discourse you can say back oh all legislation is based on animus issues of arbitrary distinctions are not the end of ethical discourse they are the beginning but for vegans were not yet even at that stage we're at the stage of trying to get the ten people gathered around the table to draw the line of trying to call the convention of trying to make people aware this is an issue for modern civilization as fundamental as the ethics of war as fundamental of the as the use of torture as the fundamental as the conditions of prisoners and jails we need to be drawing a line and we can draw that line ten times until we get it right but we're shifting from a view of the world that refused to accept that any such line could exist to a view of the world that such a line must exist