This is a topic I have been thinking about for a while, but have yet to think in depth about. So, I thought I'd brainstorm with the blog.
We have seen what we commonly accept as moral change over time, and one of the major players in this change is convenience. We mass produce food, at the cost of many animals experiences, but for the sake of human convenience. We also illegally posses intellectual property (movies, music, ideas) because of the convenience with which we can get it. Now between these two examples one can see that we need to define what convenience is, but i don't think this is such an easy term to pin down. It is like the "expedient" we saw Mill deal with. The term seems to change meaning based on context or goal. What is convenient in one situation is not in another, or is not convenient for the same situation if the goal is different. However, I will not dwell on this definition.
The major question regards the relationship of convenience and right or wrong. Is it because of the convenience of a thing that it is morally wrong or right? Does convenience even play a role? If everyone can easily do something with little cost to themselves and society as a whole does this not agree with the moral systems presented both by Kant and Mill? Mill seems to consider convenience in this way as, at the very least, sometimes a good thing. So does Kant. If things are universally non-contradictory, then they can be done with moral righteousness. If anything, the convenience of an action only increases the likelihood that it will happen.
A large issue here is the definition of convenience, and avoiding this definition is causing me trouble. Unfortunately, I am not quite able to define it yet. Maybe it really is no different than expedient. The terms are certainly similar. Could it be interpreted as the ease with which a thing is done? Then what is ease? Ease in light of trouble cause and labor ensued? Could it be that convenience is defined in terms of the moral system we use as ground?
At the very least, we have seen a rise in actions based on their convenience, and many of these actions have moral value. Yet it seems that the easier a thing is done, the less likely it is that one will consider it worthy of moral analysis. There seems to be a problem here, but I can't quite formulate it. If it's not apparent, I'm not sure where this rabbit hole goes, and if it actually leads somewhere. Any thoughts? Thoughts in light of Mill's and Kant's philosophical systems.
Thanks for your comments!
As far as animal mass production goes, there are many people who do see it as wrong and choose to avoid it. Local production has been the latest food fad and I'm curious to see if it continues. In more progressive cities there are larger options for vegetarians, vegans, natural food eaters, etc. Many philosophers posit that meat eating will be seen as barbaric in 100 years, and one philosopher even compares slaughter houses to the holocaust.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the illegal downloading goes, I think that is definitely an interesting question. I have some friends who will only download music if they can justify it as 'well it's probably just the record company getting the money'. As someone who streams television/movies as well as buy it, I'm not sure what I personally believe.
Convenient is able for cause us less pain than inconvenience. Remember the last time you were frustrated about your computer and wanted to throw it out of the window? That was because the computer was causing inconvenience. I think Mill would agree that if the pain eliminated by convenience is more than the pain caused by convenience, it is moral to do what is convenient.
ReplyDeleteHowever you are right that what is convenient varies according to situation. In the Rhodes environment, eating meat is convenient and being a vegan is not. Should we then be meat eaters? I don't think Mill's theory would suggest that meat eating is morally applaudable, considering the pain caused by meat consumption is publicly exposed and well argued against (at least among Philosophers - taking Andreas' words for it).
I don't know if Kant could tell you much about the moral of convenience. It is too specific a topic to be applied to duty. He would repeat the CI to you and let you figure it out with your own reason.
Gandhi said that the greatness and moral progress of a nation could be judged by their treatment of animals. This however was not what he was talking about, or at least not in my mind. It is very inhumane what happens to a lot creatures involved in the business of mass produced livestock, and I don't subscribe to the argument that animals can't feel pain; frankly it holds no traction. Pain is a very real part of nature, it tries it's best not to be: a lion will suffocate it's prey in a very humane fashion, but an alligator will brutally drown it's target, there is no sense in the game of who eats who, there is only function. I think that if low prices from the inhumane treatment of animals can take the stress away from having to feed your family, that it could be considered justifiable.
ReplyDelete