Comments on “Eating Ethically”
Michael D. Berger
21 March 2007

Table of Contents

1 Introduction
2 Souls
     2.1 Consciousness
         2.1.1 Liberal Naturalism
         2.1.2 Panprotopsychism
     2.2 Non-Centrality
     2.3 Evolutionary Morality
3 Economics
     3.1 The Seventh Principle
     3.2 Pastoral Aesthetics
     3.3 The Big Picture
Endnotes

1 Introduction

When I first heard that our covenant groups would be discussing "Eating Ethically", I reacted negatively. Neither I, nor, I suspect, the others in my group are likely to alter eating habits for global economic reasons. It does, however, provide a vehicle to discuss some basic issues, which I sketch here. A better understanding of my view requires some preliminaries.

2 Souls

It is not acceptable to eat other people. The reason that is given is usually one version or another of: "Like you, the person you are thinking of eating has a soul, and therefore has certain rights that preclude use as food." The actual meaning of this statement depends upon what you mean by "soul". To me, "having a soul" is equivalent to "having consciousness".

2.1 Consciousness

To further pursue matters in this section, a good starting point is the work of David Chalmers.

2.1.1 Liberal Naturalism

My ontological beliefs are similar to "Liberal Naturalism" as described in a dissertation by Greg Rosenberg, who writes:

… Like materialism, Liberal Naturalism holds that the world is composed from a single set of fundamental properties and entities, related by a single set of fundamental laws. However, unlike materialism, Liberal Naturalism holds that some of these properties and laws are not physical properties and laws. … The Liberal Naturalists recognize the possibility that what is described by physics and what subsists in physics, may not circumscribe nature's limits. That allows them comfortably to step outside the standard physicalist ontology, while retaining a naturalist world view. From The GungHo Reductionist and New Mysterian standpoints, this is something of an endaround. (1)

For comparison, consider Naturalism which, in some versions, allows a slightly broader scope of existing things, and Physicalism which allows a narrower scope. In my view, whether consciousness will ever be explained by physics will depend, in part, on a future definition of physics. There are plenty of other issues, not the least of which is what is meant by "exist", or, if you will pardon the allusion, what the meaning of "is" is.

My present view differs from that presented in my 1999 paper on beliefs, wherein I took the position that only physical things exist.

2.2.2 Panprotopsychism

Otherwise known as "Panprotoexperientialism", I quote Wikipedia:

… credits all entities with non-physical properties that are precursors to phenomenal consciousness (or phenomenal consciousness in a latent, undeveloped form) but not with cognition itself, or with conscious awareness.

This is my view, having rejected reductionism and emergence theories as not providing adequate explanation.

An example of this kind of thinking is provided by the computer at which I am working. The complex computations that operate my word processor depend on the ability of disparate entities to interact with one another is an organized manner. At several levels, the human manufacturers provided several kinds of organization to the interaction. But the human manufacturers did not provide the means of interaction (electric charge, etc.) — that came with the atoms.

By rough analogy, the physical properties, provided by the atoms, etc., enable our brains, and perhaps our computers, to perform the complex interactions required to make consciousness manifest. The physical properties (almost by definition) do not provide the consciousness itself, or at least there is no warrant to assume so in the absence of at least a preliminary formulation of the nature of the causal chain. To understand how far we are from achieving this, note that there is nothing in the language physics as it is presently formulated that would support such a description. The consciousness comes from aspects of nature we are yet to understand. If and when we achieve this understanding, it may or may not be integrated into physics, depending upon its character.

2.2 Non-Centrality

This is simple: there is nothing special here. Our tribe does not contain the only beings with souls; nor does our race; nor does our nation; nor does our species; nor does our planet. The Earth is not the center of the universe; nor is our Galaxy. Earth is not the only location of intelligent life; nor is its intelligent life the best — whatever that might mean. One would think that by now these things would be obvious, but they have had surprisingly little effect on culture and religion.

2.3 Evolutionary Morality

I quote:

… Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. … (2)

And from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J.:

First: evil of disorder and failure. Right up to the reflective zone we have seen the world progressing by means of groping and chance. Under this heading alone — even up the human level on which chance is most controlled — how many failures have there been for one success, how many days of misery for one hour's joy, how many sins for a solitary saint? To begin with we find physical lack-of-arrangement or derangement on the material level; then suffering, which cuts into the sentient flesh; then on a still higher level, wickedness and the torture of spirit as it analyses itself and makes choices. Statistically, at every degree of evolution, we find evil always and everywhere, forming and reforming implacably in us and around us. Necessarium est ut scandala eveniant. This is relentlessly imposed by the play of large numbers at the heart of a multitude undergoing organization. (3)

and finally, Genesis 1:31:

And God saw everything he had made, and indeed it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

The bottom line: eating one another is in the order of things. If we call it evil, which I do, it is a manifestation of intrinsic evil aspects of the universe. We like to think of degrees of evil. For example, we can order things according to how evil it is to eat them:

• salt,
• sugar,
• carrot,
• oyster,
• fish,
• cow,
• chicken,
• whale,
• human,
• higher alien.

Are you disappointed that you are not the last choice for dinner? This ordering is based on the complexity of the soul we destroy. (4) I am glad that we have prohibited eating one another; and I am glad we have not prohibited eating cows. But it is rather arbitrary.

3 Economics

3.1 The Seventh Principle

• Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

Notwithstanding my individualist tendencies, I do strongly believe that without interaction, I am essentially nothing. All existence? Small matters on distant planets probably affect me little. It is a good idea to prioritize one's concerns.

3.2 Pastoral Aesthetics

Amy Hassinger says:

When most food is grown in environmentally unsustainable ways, is there a 'Seventh Principle' approach to food? (5)

No doubt there is such an approach. Primarily, however, I am struck by the tone of the article. My reaction:

What? The farms of the Mid-West do not conform to your expectations derived from your experience in the gardens of New England? I am so sorry to hear that! Here, we will fix it — you can eat this chicken that was cared for lovingly before it was murdered.

I fear this article says more about how we bring up our children, than it says about how to lead a moral life. I remember little of my early childhood. But I vividly remember my emotional response when I first learned the origin of meat. My mother tried to say the animals didn't mind, but I didn't buy it — even then. (I suspect that part of my reaction came from a fear that I too could be eaten.) However, I remained, and I remain, a meat eater.

3.3 The Big Picture

Interesting that becoming a vegetarian would have stronger effects than would driving a more efficient car. I do believe that better treatment of the environment is a good thing. I note also that a worm recently found on our kitchen table was not harmed, but was delivered back to nature — or to our best local approximation thereof.

But I do not believe for a second that such behaviors will long forestall the catastrophic effects, direct or indirect, of:

• political ineptness,
• evolved competitiveness,
• general moral inadequacy,
• logistical chaos,
• and most importantly, overpopulation.

As I have said before, I think that the ideal population of the world is about one hundred million. I believe that it is probably best to achieve this by attrition. Failing wide support for my population target, I certainly support other steps to ameliorate social and environmental problems. But, let us not deceive ourselves regarding the extent of the effect of our actions. Perhaps the best relevant news that I have heard recently is that some conservative churches are taking an interest in global warming. News that large numbers of UUs have achieved spiritual communion with the universe when opening their refrigerators would be, shall we say, not quite as inspiring.

Endnotes