Society/Culture Are you an ethical hypocrite?

Remove this Banner Ad

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,446
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
My position generally is that thinking people should aspire to intellectual consistency.

By that, I mean that we should consider our principles and then do our best to apply them consistently and hopefully live accordingly.

Sometimes this will force us to acknowledge a gap between our avowed principles and whether we indeed live up to them. If you aspire to intellectual consistency, you should seek to close this gap when you identify it.

For me, I cannot avoid my own ethical hypocrisy when it comes to animal welfare and my own habit of eating them.

I abhor the mistreatment of animals. I agree largely with the arguments of Peter Singer on this topic. One day in the future, people may well look back on the way we currently treat animals, and our indifference to their suffering, with absolute moral disgust, maybe not so far removed from the way we now regard slavery. An Animal Holocaust that lasted centuries.

When I see reports of someone who has tortured or killed an animal for no reason, I have an intense reaction. I think big game hunters who pose with photos of dead elephants and other species are absolutely grotesque. I feel total moral disgust. If someone killed or seriously harmed my dog, no punishment would be sufficient. I'd want them treated by the law as child murderers. I would be willing to administer state-sanctioned corporal punishment myself. It is perhaps my most illiberal impulse.

That said, I eat pigs, cows, chicken and fish. But if folks in Korea and China and elsewhere eat dogs, that's disgusting. That should be banned.

All of this is of course irrational but I'd still like to think that I am broadly committed to ethical principles of animal welfare.

And yet, I eat meat that has probably been factory-farmed, which we know inflicts gross and unnecessary suffering on animals. I participate in an economy that derives profit from their suffering on an industrial scale.

I don't accept arguments about "the food chain". We've moved beyond that.

And that's before we even get to questions about sustainability, which I also like to think I take seriously. But we can't have 6 billion people eating beef twice a week. If you're worried about the environment, one simple modification would be to curtail the global demand for beef, which would start with everyone eating it less.

To this effect, I also look at folks who oppose bullfighting, which I dislike as a ritual. But the reality is that bulls who are reared to die in the ring have a far better quality of life than beef cattle, and probably suffer less when they are killed.

And I eat plenty of beef.

This is ethical hypocrisy on my part.

What are your areas of ethical hypocrisy?
 

Gethelred

Brownlow Medallist
May 1, 2016
19,831
40,869
AFL Club
Carlton
I think this thread is a wonderful idea, in the complete wrong part of the internet.

Do you think that what is said in here will not be wheeled out when someone a month or a year down the line is looking to win an argument?
 

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
19,300
20,013
AFL Club
Sydney
There is no such thing as 'ethical hypocrisy'!!!!!!
Ethics - ethics = 0 ethics.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Mateyman

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 16, 2012
11,639
8,610
AFL Club
Collingwood
My position generally is that thinking people should aspire to intellectual consistency.

By that, I mean that we should consider our principles and then do our best to apply them consistently and hopefully live accordingly.

Sometimes this will force us to acknowledge a gap between our avowed principles and whether we indeed live up to them. If you aspire to intellectual consistency, you should seek to close this gap when you identify it.

For me, I cannot avoid my own ethical hypocrisy when it comes to animal welfare and my own habit of eating them.

I abhor the mistreatment of animals. I agree largely with the arguments of Peter Singer on this topic. One day in the future, people may well look back on the way we currently treat animals, and our indifference to their suffering, with absolute moral disgust, maybe not so far removed from the way we now regard slavery. An Animal Holocaust that lasted centuries.

When I see reports of someone who has tortured or killed an animal for no reason, I have an intense reaction. I think big game hunters who pose with photos of dead elephants and other species are absolutely grotesque. I feel total moral disgust. If someone killed or seriously harmed my dog, no punishment would be sufficient. I'd want them treated by the law as child murderers. I would be willing to administer state-sanctioned corporal punishment myself. It is perhaps my most illiberal impulse.

That said, I eat pigs, cows, chicken and fish. But if folks in Korea and China and elsewhere eat dogs, that's disgusting. That should be banned.

All of this is of course irrational but I'd still like to think that I am broadly committed to ethical principles of animal welfare.

And yet, I eat meat that has probably been factory-farmed, which we know inflicts gross and unnecessary suffering on animals. I participate in an economy that derives profit from their suffering on an industrial scale.

I don't accept arguments about "the food chain". We've moved beyond that.

And that's before we even get to questions about sustainability, which I also like to think I take seriously. But we can't have 6 billion people eating beef twice a week. If you're worried about the environment, one simple modification would be to curtail the global demand for beef, which would start with everyone eating it less.

To this effect, I also look at folks who oppose bullfighting, which I dislike as a ritual. But the reality is that bulls who are reared to die in the ring have a far better quality of life than beef cattle, and probably suffer less when they are killed.

And I eat plenty of beef.

This is ethical hypocrisy on my part.

What are your areas of ethical hypocrisy?
What are your thoughts about trying to reduce your beef/other meat intake?
 

Opine

Premium Gold
Aug 30, 2018
6,529
11,859
AFL Club
Carlton
I think this thread is a wonderful idea, in the complete wrong part of the internet.

Do you think that what is said in here will not be wheeled out when someone a month or a year down the line is looking to win an argument?
That’d be highly unethical on the part of those wheeling out admissions.
 

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,446
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
I think this thread is a wonderful idea, in the complete wrong part of the internet.

Do you think that what is said in here will not be wheeled out when someone a month or a year down the line is looking to win an argument?
I'm comfortable with my ethical hypocrisy on the issue of animal welfare being pointed out.
 

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,446
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
What are your thoughts about trying to reduce your beef/other meat intake?
It's something I should do, if only for health reasons, although it's one of those cases where any individual action makes an insignificant difference to a problem that exists on a larger scale. If I went vegetarian, it's not going to stop Brazil cutting down the Amazon or lower greenhouse emissions.

Sure, eating less or no meat would make me more ethically consistent, because it's something I believe is required for both animal welfare and sustainability. But a real solution would require 7 billion people eating less meat. So my ethical consistency aside, me eating less meat isn't really a solution to anything.

It's the inertia of big problems.
 
Last edited:

Opine

Premium Gold
Aug 30, 2018
6,529
11,859
AFL Club
Carlton
…It's something I should do, …, me eating less meat isn't really a solution to anything.

It's the inertia of big problems.
Eating less, rather than nil, meat could indeed be an ethical solution.
Unless imposed upon you by external source/s, your internal conscientiousness will guide what constitutes ethical conduct in a particular circumstance. The question to ask is “what type of animal welfare advocate do I personally want to be” that may mean different things for each of us.
 

Pie eyed

Premium Platinum
Jun 26, 2007
40,103
18,764
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Magpies
My position generally is that thinking people should aspire to intellectual consistency.

By that, I mean that we should consider our principles and then do our best to apply them consistently and hopefully live accordingly.

Sometimes this will force us to acknowledge a gap between our avowed principles and whether we indeed live up to them. If you aspire to intellectual consistency, you should seek to close this gap when you identify it.

For me, I cannot avoid my own ethical hypocrisy when it comes to animal welfare and my own habit of eating them.

I abhor the mistreatment of animals. I agree largely with the arguments of Peter Singer on this topic. One day in the future, people may well look back on the way we currently treat animals, and our indifference to their suffering, with absolute moral disgust, maybe not so far removed from the way we now regard slavery. An Animal Holocaust that lasted centuries.

When I see reports of someone who has tortured or killed an animal for no reason, I have an intense reaction. I think big game hunters who pose with photos of dead elephants and other species are absolutely grotesque. I feel total moral disgust. If someone killed or seriously harmed my dog, no punishment would be sufficient. I'd want them treated by the law as child murderers. I would be willing to administer state-sanctioned corporal punishment myself. It is perhaps my most illiberal impulse.

That said, I eat pigs, cows, chicken and fish. But if folks in Korea and China and elsewhere eat dogs, that's disgusting. That should be banned.

All of this is of course irrational but I'd still like to think that I am broadly committed to ethical principles of animal welfare.

And yet, I eat meat that has probably been factory-farmed, which we know inflicts gross and unnecessary suffering on animals. I participate in an economy that derives profit from their suffering on an industrial scale.

I don't accept arguments about "the food chain". We've moved beyond that.

And that's before we even get to questions about sustainability, which I also like to think I take seriously. But we can't have 6 billion people eating beef twice a week. If you're worried about the environment, one simple modification would be to curtail the global demand for beef, which would start with everyone eating it less.

To this effect, I also look at folks who oppose bullfighting, which I dislike as a ritual. But the reality is that bulls who are reared to die in the ring have a far better quality of life than beef cattle, and probably suffer less when they are killed.

And I eat plenty of beef.

This is ethical hypocrisy on my part.

What are your areas of ethical hypocrisy?
You know that Barnaby Joyce is in your house right?

Probably on the payroll of the Beef industry but possibly to knock off your missus.
The sneaky little corrupt adulterer
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Gameova_

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 16, 2011
6,345
6,578
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Funny I was thinking of this only two or so nights ago as Melbourne cup approached. Was even thinking of making a thread but just with a focus on the Melbourne cup and my own hypocrisy.

Horse racing imo is terrible since they abuse and drug up horses and beat them so they run faster but at the same time I regularly eat fish and chicken and on occasions meat.

I'm a hypocrite.
 

Seeds

Hall of Famer
Sep 15, 2007
45,188
40,942
I don't know
AFL Club
Geelong
My position generally is that thinking people should aspire to intellectual consistency.

By that, I mean that we should consider our principles and then do our best to apply them consistently and hopefully live accordingly.

Sometimes this will force us to acknowledge a gap between our avowed principles and whether we indeed live up to them. If you aspire to intellectual consistency, you should seek to close this gap when you identify it.

For me, I cannot avoid my own ethical hypocrisy when it comes to animal welfare and my own habit of eating them.

I abhor the mistreatment of animals. I agree largely with the arguments of Peter Singer on this topic. One day in the future, people may well look back on the way we currently treat animals, and our indifference to their suffering, with absolute moral disgust, maybe not so far removed from the way we now regard slavery. An Animal Holocaust that lasted centuries.

When I see reports of someone who has tortured or killed an animal for no reason, I have an intense reaction. I think big game hunters who pose with photos of dead elephants and other species are absolutely grotesque. I feel total moral disgust. If someone killed or seriously harmed my dog, no punishment would be sufficient. I'd want them treated by the law as child murderers. I would be willing to administer state-sanctioned corporal punishment myself. It is perhaps my most illiberal impulse.

That said, I eat pigs, cows, chicken and fish. But if folks in Korea and China and elsewhere eat dogs, that's disgusting. That should be banned.

All of this is of course irrational but I'd still like to think that I am broadly committed to ethical principles of animal welfare.

And yet, I eat meat that has probably been factory-farmed, which we know inflicts gross and unnecessary suffering on animals. I participate in an economy that derives profit from their suffering on an industrial scale.

I don't accept arguments about "the food chain". We've moved beyond that.

And that's before we even get to questions about sustainability, which I also like to think I take seriously. But we can't have 6 billion people eating beef twice a week. If you're worried about the environment, one simple modification would be to curtail the global demand for beef, which would start with everyone eating it less.

To this effect, I also look at folks who oppose bullfighting, which I dislike as a ritual. But the reality is that bulls who are reared to die in the ring have a far better quality of life than beef cattle, and probably suffer less when they are killed.

And I eat plenty of beef.

This is ethical hypocrisy on my part.

What are your areas of ethical hypocrisy?
You can eat meat and want the animals to be looked after and have decent lives. Thats not hypocrisy dude. You arent being a hypocrite in that post.

except ofcourse in your disgust for eating dogs but lack of disgust for eating pigs which have similar intelligence and emotional depth. In that case you are being a hypocrite.
 
Last edited:

Seeds

Hall of Famer
Sep 15, 2007
45,188
40,942
I don't know
AFL Club
Geelong
I’m well known for thoughts that private health and education get a free ride from the got etc

I’ve used both of them
again not a hypocrite. The government forces you to use them with penalties for not using private health and by running down public school resources.

you can want only a public system that gets good resources from tax payers but if the govt doesnt provide that then you are not a hypocrite for using private because the public option you think we should have does not exist. You are just not making a sacrificial statement for your cause.
 

Leeda

Talons B Sharp
Sep 26, 2012
8,395
1,436
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I suspect most of us will refute our involvement in less than welcome strategies…Can’t live with nor live
with out…
 

Leeda

Talons B Sharp
Sep 26, 2012
8,395
1,436
AFL Club
Hawthorn
It's something I should do, if only for health reasons, although it's one of those cases where any individual action makes an insignificant difference to a problem that exists on a larger scale. If I went vegetarian, it's not going to stop Brazil cutting down the Amazon or lower greenhouse emissions.

Sure, eating less or no meat would make me more ethically consistent, because it's something I believe is required for both animal welfare and sustainability. But a real solution would require 7 billion people eating less meat. So my ethical consistency aside, me eating less meat isn't really a solution to anything.

It's the inertia of big problems.
Yeah but recycling your papers and plastic helps too…I only have meat once a week if that..
 

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,446
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
This is what this thread sounds like...
I personally believe....

I thought you'd welcome a thread on ethical hypocrisy.

It's a perfect platform for you to tell everyone how the Australian government is worse than the Taliban.

As proof, racism is bad.

Case closed.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad