From the book review, which is a finalist in Scott Alexander’s book review contest, so the author is anonymous (for now): … …
From the book review, which is a finalist in Scott Alexander’s book review contest, so the author is anonymous (for now):
Matthew Scully, author of Dominion, is an unlikely animal welfare advocate. He’s a conservative Christian who worked as a speechwriter for George W. Bush. That’s like finding out that Greta Thunberg’s Chief of Staff spent their spare time writing a 400-page, densely researched book called “Guns Are Good, Actually.”
Scully’s unusual background could be why it took me years of reading everything on animal welfare I could get my hands on before I stumbled on his 2002 manifesto. Let this be a warning to other authors — write just one little State of the Union address that exalts the War on Terror and your books might not get a lot of reach in more liberal, EA-adjacent circles.
…
It’s the variety of ways in which he tries to make his plea for mercy that gives the book its unique flavor. He explores hunting, whaling, factory farming, religion, ethics, capitalism, and the science of consciousness. He puts boots on the ground at hunting conventions and inside factory farms, touching squealing piglets with his bare hands. He talks to hippie activists. He engages with lifelong hunters who will die on the hill that dolphins are, in fact, really dumb. He secures interviews with high ranking diplomats from Japan. He can be repetitive, and some of his arguments miss the mark, but the sheer determination of the effort has to be commended. I have yet to encounter another animal welfare writer who put their credibility on the line to secure an exclusive interview with a high-ranking meat industry executive and then called them a moral monster to their face.
…
[A] key theme in Dominion […] is that we don’t need to assign animals specific rights, or act like they are of equal intelligence to humans, in order to show them mercy. It also shouldn’t matter whether these animals can claim any rights of their own, and it’s irrelevant that they kill and eat each other. The entire point of being given dominion was so that we could exercise reason. We are not supposed to treat the animal kingdom as a moral guidepost.
Non-vegan here. Vegans have had strong responses to these objections forever, but it's exceedingly rare that I see non-vegans engaging in good faith discussion on the issue. It doesn't surprise me...
[A] key theme in Dominion […] is that we don’t need to assign animals specific rights, or act like they are of equal intelligence to humans, in order to show them mercy. It also shouldn’t matter whether these animals can claim any rights of their own, and it’s irrelevant that they kill and eat each other. The entire point of being given dominion was so that we could exercise reason. We are not supposed to treat the animal kingdom as a moral guidepost.
Non-vegan here.
Vegans have had strong responses to these objections forever, but it's exceedingly rare that I see non-vegans engaging in good faith discussion on the issue. It doesn't surprise me that someone would find responses to these problems novel, especially if this is the first time they are hearing the arguments from someone "in their camp." I know vegans online have that same insufferable reputation new atheists have, but in either case, this stereotype isn't a good reason to not examine the arguments.
Yes, if someone is making an argument for animal rights and you don’t think they should be rights, it’s easy and saves time to focus on the “rights” part and reject the whole line of thinking. You...
Yes, if someone is making an argument for animal rights and you don’t think they should be rights, it’s easy and saves time to focus on the “rights” part and reject the whole line of thinking. You figured out why you disagree, so you’re done.
(There are worse versions of this that save even more time: Use other things that the author wrote that you don’t like to justify not engaging with anything new they write. Or, use the worst arguments by the worst advocates for the other side to dismiss a whole group of people as “they’re all like that.”)
But that doesn’t mean there aren’t other good ways to improve animal welfare, where more agreement might be found.
I think both sides need to be interested in looking for that kind of conversation, though. It takes a lot longer. It’s optimizing for more conversation rather than less. We don’t always want to take the time for that.
From the book review, which is a finalist in Scott Alexander’s book review contest, so the author is anonymous (for now):
…
…
Non-vegan here.
Vegans have had strong responses to these objections forever, but it's exceedingly rare that I see non-vegans engaging in good faith discussion on the issue. It doesn't surprise me that someone would find responses to these problems novel, especially if this is the first time they are hearing the arguments from someone "in their camp." I know vegans online have that same insufferable reputation new atheists have, but in either case, this stereotype isn't a good reason to not examine the arguments.
Yes, if someone is making an argument for animal rights and you don’t think they should be rights, it’s easy and saves time to focus on the “rights” part and reject the whole line of thinking. You figured out why you disagree, so you’re done.
(There are worse versions of this that save even more time: Use other things that the author wrote that you don’t like to justify not engaging with anything new they write. Or, use the worst arguments by the worst advocates for the other side to dismiss a whole group of people as “they’re all like that.”)
But that doesn’t mean there aren’t other good ways to improve animal welfare, where more agreement might be found.
I think both sides need to be interested in looking for that kind of conversation, though. It takes a lot longer. It’s optimizing for more conversation rather than less. We don’t always want to take the time for that.