Demi-Vegetarianism

As some of you know, I’m a vegetarian of sorts, but I consider myself more of a demi-vegetarian. British philosopher R. M. Hare, used it in the title of an essay: “Why I Am Only a Demi-Vegetarian,” chap. 15 in his Essays on Bioethics (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 219-35. According to Hare (who says he did not invent the term), a demi-vegetarian is “someone who, while not being a full vegetarian, let alone vegan, eats little meat, and is careful what kinds of meat he (or she) eats” (pages 224-5). Hare wrote that he and his wife ate little or no meat at home (except when hosting guests whom they knew—or guessed—would not like a vegetarian meal) and occasionally ate meat in restaurants when there was “no obvious alternative” (page 225).

Now Hare has exceptions as to when it’s acceptable to eat meat. Here are my exceptions and hopefully this will explain my reasons for demi-vegetarianism:

1. If the meat is organic or local, I will eat it. If I could, I would be a locavore, but being in Utah, that would mean I couldn’t eat oranges, bananas, kiwi, strawberries, and many other fruits.
2. If it’s going to waste, I will it eat. Let me give an example: let’s say that my friends and I are going out to eat. I will pick a vegetarian meal and most likely my friends will pick something with meat in it. Now let’s say that my friends are full, but I’m still hungry. Thus, I will eat the rest of their meal because it would’ve been thrown in the garbage anyway.

Now based on this, I am not a vegetarian for ethical or health reasons. So then, why am I doing this?

I guess it’s because I have a moral repugnance to factory farms. For a nice, perhaps cartoonish example of how factory farms operate check out the meatrix (Note: it’s not gross or sickening. If anything, it’s kind of entertaining.)

Let me ask this question: would you be against any form of torture to animals? Imagine taking cats and dogs and just drowning them for fun or burning puppies. Yeah, it’s an extreme example, but I would think pretty much everyone would agree that those activities are immoral. Well, I find the situations in factory farms similar, if not equal, to torture.

If it’s grown organically or locally, then they will not be in factory farm situations.

Here are some books that provides my philosophy well:

This is an excellent book describing how the fast food industry started. It’s an interesting story of the history of fast food but it also gives dark implications about how food has become “fast-fooditized” and that fast food in general is a detriment to our health.

These next books I haven’t read, but I definitely would like to in order to develop my philosophy of food:

Peter Singer is always known for his vegetarianism combined with utilitarianism.

and

are books that are next on my list when it comes to the philosophy of food. Pollan argues for eating locally because the way that our food system is going now will be a worldwide catastrophe.

I don’t see the arguments (but as I’ve said, I haven’t read the last three books) but I would like to learn about these philosophies and implement them into my own. Perhaps they have a point, but they may hold on to a nostalgic way of how food has been produced.

Update: 03/09/09.  I have finally read the books above and it was an adventure.  I am ready to say more about the developments of my thoughts on demi-vegetarianism conscienceness omnivore.  That’s the term that Pollan and Singer use.  Before I say more about these books, I re-read Hare’s article and there was something in there that really grabbed me.

Hare has three arguments for his demi-vegetarianism: health, economic, and moral.  The health and moral reasons are easy to understand.  What about the economic?  I think the economic is actually the most persuasive (although it’s mixed in with a little morals).  Basically, the argument is that in economic troubles, it’s more economical to grow food (vegetables and fruits) than to grow fodder, then feed it to the animals, and then eat the animals.  Food is produced more effectively and enormously through growing vegetables.  From this, it seems odd that most of the Western world has given up their land for the sake of raising meat.  When we eat vegetables, they’re mainly getting the source from the sun.  How much does that cost us?  Free. Feedlots to feed animals thrive on corn.  But the corn for feedlots requires chemical fertilizers.  In other words, oil.  Based on this, how much oil does it cost to feed a 534 lb. to a 1250 lb. steer?  284 gallons of oil just to fatten the steer. So economically speaking, if we wanted food for humans, it would be easier to feed the starving millions even outside of the Western World. Of course, we reach another problem of making sure that these people become self-supporting, but that’s a whole other issue. At the same time, there is land where it’s not suitable to raise crops, but it’s perfect to raise pasture and livestock.

With this, let’s say we argue for vegetarianism.  Since the US is about 8 percent vegetarian, this stops or slows the production of organic meat and local meat.  I doubt the regular meat-eaters will eat sustainable food because getting their meat at fast-food or any conventional store is cheap.  So what happens: the factory farms are still in business and the local foods drop because there’s no demand for them.  However, say we argue for demi-vegetarianism.  Now, there’s a demand for local and organic meat.  You’d have to shop at Whole Foods or get your meat from a sustainable farm.  I think more people are willing to do this.  With this, the factory farms will drop in the demand, thus their supply and so not many animals will suffer.  I think it’s a brilliant argument from Hare.

With the books, here’s the order I would suggest:

1. Fast Food Nation. This is the book to start you off in looking at the reality of food.  You won’t want to eat fast food anymore.  If it’s too long for, I would read Chew on This.
2. The Omnivore’s Dilemma. From here, you’ll expand your knowledge of fast food and work your way to sustainable food.  You’ll think twice about buying even organic food and trying to eat consciously.
3. The Ethics of What We Eat. With this, you can bring in some philosophy but you’ll also see the sources for whatever diet you choose to eat.
4. Finally, In Defense of Food. Now you know what to avoid, here’s what you can eat.

Of course, this is my order.  You can read it any way you prefer.

Kierkegaard and Fundamentalist Christians

Back in a previous post, I mentioned that a possible paper topic I could write about was pertaining to Kierkegaard and Fundamentalist Christians.  Well, I’ve been thinking more about that lately.  What would Kierkegaard think about the Fundamentalist Christians?

Here’s what I’m thinking: Kierkegaard is a fideist, which basically mean faith comes first and reason is second priority.  Well, part of Kierkegaard’s philosophy is that:

1.  Faith creates its own justification.

2.  If you have faith and you give reasons why you have faith, then that’s not faith.

3.  Real religious faith is always going to have risk. And it’s a scary risk.

Now in Kierkegaard’s day, and even in our own day, we see many people that claim to be Christian but they sure don’t act like it. People assumed they were Christian because they were born of Christian parents, and they were raised in a Christian society, they went to church once a week, they learned the prayers, and the understood the doctrines. So then to be born a Christian seems to give the presumption that one is a Christian and Kierkegaard says that this is totally insufficient. People think they’re Christians because of certain beliefs. In fact, if you ask certain Christians what they believed, they would find most of the doctrines incomprehensible. So just because you say you believe, or you assent to believe isn’t enough to be a Christian.

If you are to be a certain person, then you must take the whole package. If you truly believed that a certain action is sinful, then your life must reflect that belief. Otherwise, Kierkegaard would call you a hypocrite. But then again, Kierkegaard thought everyone was acting like this. Thus, everyone’s a hypocrite.
You must believe in it, not just merely believe it.  So people thought that just being a Christian meant going to a sermon and listening to the leaders and that’s that.

People have lacked passion.  Indeed, Kierkegaard says that it’s easier to become a Christian if you aren’t one already than if you were born a Christian. It’s a commitment; it’s not something to be taken for granted. So people aren’t true Christians just because they were raised that way or because they spout off certain beliefs. Kierkegaard would consider them as hypocrites. Their beliefs are empty. These people see themselves as part of a banal membership. They belong to a church; they hang out together claiming to be part of a group, but it has nothing to do with Christianity. They are sanctimonious – pretending to be holy. What’s going on is that Kierkegaard would say that it’s false Christianity; that it’s inauthentic Christianity.

Most Christians are part of the herd mentality. People assert what other people believe. They don’t think about it, but most importantly they don’t feel about it. People go to church for rituals and social belonging. But being a Christian is more of an individual passionate commitment.

He really concentrated on the individual saying that philosophy will never capture what the individual is all about.

So based on this, I can see Kierkegaard agreeing with the Fundamentalists.  However, here are some things that he would disagree:  Having faith then doesn’t come from what you hear, or what you’ve grown up with, or what you’ve been influenced by; it’s based on your own solitude alone and no one can make that choice except you.

Kierkegaard regarded Abraham from the Bible as having true faith, a religious life.
The story is that Abraham has been longing for a child and he finally gets it. And now, God tells Abraham to sacrifice his only son. In the name of faith, Abraham sees what Kierkegaard wants to point out: killing your son doesn’t make it morally right, but it’s something that Abraham must do. From any perspective, what Abraham did was absurd. He made that choice through a paradox, there were no grounds to justify his choice and-this is important-he knew it. He couldn’t go to Sarah and ask “What do you think?” or his fellow tribesmen. He knew in advance what they’d say. He can’t justify his actions to other people, but he also can’t justify these actions to himself. He had to face this alone. But there is one perspective where in a weird way, it does make sense: faith. He has to face this alone. All that’s left is a felt commitment to God. When Abraham made his choice, it wasn’t an easy choice. It was agonizing, full of despair, anxiety, and it was hard.

So all of the preachers, the bishops, the chaplains, and rabbis, and the priests. They all talk about Abraham and they say that you just have to have faith like Abraham like it’s the easiest thing in the world. But they’re just taking him for granted, as if it was the easiest thing in the world. Having faith-being like Abraham-is actually hard work. It’s not easy. Thus, religious faith is not easy. Proper religious faith can only be achieved with great difficulty. The Religious life is this: to truly become “a subject”, you must somehow take on this paradox: to obey God while admitting at the same time that you will never know for sure that you are obeying God. You must paradoxically know that you don’t know. Does this make sense? Not really, but Kierkegaard isn’t trying to make sense, he’s trying to edify us. But only faith makes you an authentic, existing self.

So this is where he would say that the Fundamentalists are not authentic Christians because they don’t have this true faith because faith for Kierkegaard is filled with anxiety, disappointment, dispair, and it’s hard.

However, could the Fundamentalists be closer to the religious life then common Christians?

Spiritual but not Religious??

Often I hear that people are spiritual but not religious.  What does this mean?  To say that one is spiritual–does that mean that s/he believes in spirits?  in ghosts? in some afterlife?  in God even?

Next, what does it mean to be religious?  To be religious means to follow a certain religion.  So to put this into a common-language term, it means that someone still believes in (God, ghosts, the afterlife, souls, etc.) but doesn’t follow the dogmas, doctrines or any dictations of a certain religion.

Now here’s my question: WHY?  Why do you still believe in God, souls, etc.?

Here have been a few replies:

1.  “Because it makes me feel better.”  Well, this argument is obviously flawed.  That’s like saying that one should believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny for the pure fact that it makes one feel better.  This argument doesn’t work.

2.  “Because if I don’t believe in God and God exists, then I’m doomed to eternal torment.”  Ahh, but wait a minute.  You just said that you’re not religious.  If you’re not religious, then why is it that you follow the dictates of a certain religion?  It seems odd that you will not follow the dictates of the religion because you find it too dogmatic or you’re skeptical about it.  But when it comes to hell, all the sudden you believe it.  Aren’t you picking and choosing what to believe and what not based on what you feel is good for you?  What it comes down to is that if the facts don’t correspond to your belief, you are more likely going to change the facts instead of your belief.  On top of this, the belief that you will be condemned to hell is a religious belief, not a spiritual one.

3.  “Because atheists are bad people.  I’m not a bad person.  Therefore, I’m not an atheist.”  This is a bad argument.  Assumption one is flawed.  First of all, does it follow that all atheists are bad people?  I’m sure you can think of many people who don’t believe in God yet are good people (the Buddha, for example).  Likewise, I’m sure you can think of many people who are believers but aren’t that good.  So one cannot assume to say that atheists are bad people because there are countless examples that don’t verify that fact.

In short, what I want to say to those people who say they aren’t religious, but spiritual.  My reply to them is you’re really a skeptic, atheist, agnostic, doubter but you’re just afraid to admit that.

Possible Writing Sample Projects

I’m not really expecting people to reply to this. This is mainly for my own benefit. I’m a big believer in writing things down, not just for organizational purposes, but because writing things down actually helps you form beliefs that you may not know that you’ve already had. I have to write a really good writing sample to apply for grad school next year and I’m looking at previous papers that I’ve written to see if I could possibly use them. Here are some ideas:

1. Emotions as Clues in Determining Biases in Epistemology. In this paper, I spell out Alison Jagger’s idea that emotions have been undermined in the past, especially when it comes to epistemology. She suggests that emotions may actually help one gain knowledge for two reasons. One, it helps you look at the other side and see why they have that emotional response; and two, by gaining that emotional response, it helps you with your own value systems because to look at the world is to bring value into it. If I decide to use this paper, I will have to spell out Jagger’s philosophy more. CONS: it’s an epistemology paper and I really don’t want to focus on this later on. But if this will help me get into grad school, I may consider it.

2. Hegel and Sartre’s Master/Servitude Dialectic. In this paper, I showed how Sartre borrowed Hegel’s Master/Servitude dialectic of truth. However, I apply this to Sartre’s view of love and how it becomes a dominant/submissive relationship instead of a typical “nice” theory. I use Sartre’s play No Exit to spell this out. CONS: I’m not exactly sure what to do with this. It seems that the paper’s too simple. I need to put more details maybe? more critical aspects? perhaps show where Sartre got wrong when he got his theory from Hegel? In other words, I’m not sure where to go with this.

3. A Critique of Wittgenstein. As the title suggests, I offer a critique of Wittenstein by showing what the Family-Resemblance model takes us. To its logical conclusion, I suggest that it leads us to weird conclusions and perhaps relativism. On the positive side, I “save” his view by bringing in Foucault and suggest that new paradigms exist in language by using Foucault’s view of Will to Truth. CONS: I showed this to a Wittgensteinian scholar and she said that the flaws with Wittgenstein aren’t really big flaws. Thus, I would have to delve deep into his views and see if I can spell out the problems with Wittgenstein. On top of this, I really haven’t studied much of Foucault, so I would really have to start from scratch when it comes to Foucault.

4. Why Does God Care if I Believe in His Existence? This is the most recent paper that I’ve written. I go through the history of Socrates, the Scriptures, and in an existentialist book called The Stranger and show that it’s actually society that forces believers to believe because it wants to have a group epistemology rather than coming up with theological statements. I really like this paper because it did really well when I presented it at the Philosophy Club meeting at WSU. CONS: most of my colleagues have said not to use it. Not because it’s a bad paper, but because the paper is about religion and my interests are not really in the philosophy of religion. Since my interests are in Continental Philosophy, I should really stay with that. Thus, options two and three should have higher priority. On top of this, I don’t think this paper is something that professors are looking for when it comes to a writing sample. This is low-priority paper then.

5. Untitled. This would definitely be starting over. I had an idea of a dialogue between Hegel and Schopenhauer and why Schopenhauer rejects Hegel’s view and I suggest that Schopenhauer’s is indeed a better view. CONS: it’s been about 3 years since I’ve read Hegel, and about 5 years since I’ve read Schopenhauer. It would be a fun paper to write, but I’d rather work on something that I have, rather than starting over from scratch.

6. The Problem of Love from Sartre to Irigaray. Finally, this paper offers an account of love from Sartre and Irigaray’s response to it. This was the paper that I used originally. I was thinking of updating this and end it with Sartre actually replying to Irigaray. It would be so that in this paper, Sartre would have the final say, not Irigaray. This is a paper that I’ve spent a lot of time on because it was part of my Master’s Thesis. CONS: this paper is very myopic in terms of post-structuralist/psychoanalytic/second (or even third)-generation feminism. As such, some programs probably won’t want me because they want someone who’s interests are a bit broader. This is why I was thinking of ending the paper not with Irigaray winning out, but with Sartre. It would get back to a grander view in the history of philosophy instead of sticking with a detailed topic. Expand my horizons as my professors would say.

7. Another idea I’ve been kicking around is what would Kierkegaard think of Fundamentalist Christianity. I think it would be a fun topic, but I haven’t read Kierkegaard in a long while, and I’m really not in the mood to research fundamentalist Christianity.

All in all, I’m leaning towards options two, three, and six.

UPDATE: I think I should work with what I have and the advise I’m getting from previous philosophers has helped me develop into what type of paper to go for.  Thus, I’m definitely not doing options four, five, and seven.  The advise I’m getting is to see what is happening in contemporary philosophy and see how I could reply to them.  Also, I should delve into what the philosophers are talking about right now and see if their arguments are consistent.  Thus, I think I can develop my paper better using options three and six.  I’m more inclined to do six because I think I could develop it more.  However, this doesn’t limit me from looking at other options.  I will do some skimming of the research to see which is best and then make an established decision based on the research.

Bill O’Reilly was having a bad day!!

Bill O’Reilly did some damage 20 years ago when he was working at Inside Edition. However, I saw this remix and I laughed myself silly. Check it out:

Here’s the original:

And here’s the remix:

My favorite part is the “I don’t know, I don’t know, I don’t know fuck!”

I’m Staying!!

I thank everyone for helping me with advice on whether I should go to grad school or not.  I have called Carbondale and I can defer my acceptance.  With this, I’m going to reapply for next year but I’m going to retake the GRE, and get a better writing sample.  Hopefully, I’ll be able to speak at some conferences as well during this year.

So in the end, I’m going to be in Utah for another year.

Chris Hedges doesn’t believe in Atheism

Chris Hedges doesn’t believe in atheists. What he means is that the new form of Atheism (e.g. Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens) is another brand of fundamentalism, a new form of radicalism if you will.

The interview is interesting in that Hedges states that he is against radicalism, both religious and secular, but he does something towards the end which I question. He says that humanity is basically (or perhaps inherently evil) and that if we look at the world in binary oppositions, then we’re doomed and we’re just following a utopian dream. However, his belief on human nature seems extreme as well. Check it out and tell me what you think.

The Problem with Moral Obligations

A lot of moral philosophers have said that we have a moral obligation to do x.  But hold on there!  Let’s back up a bit.  The question that needs to be asked is why.  Why do we have a moral obligation to do x?  In fact, let’s take it one step further: why do we have moral obligations at all?  I could imagine one responding back saying, “well, we should have moral obligations because. . . ” Well, hold on there.  The “should” in that sentence already implies an obligation.  In other words, it’s stating that we have a moral obligation to have a moral obligation.  But then, why have that second order moral obligation.  Again, the response could be “Well, we should have a moral obligation to have a moral obligation because. . .” and again it’s repeating itself.  So the question remains: why do we have moral obligations?  Should we have moral obligations?  If so why, and to what?

Should I go to grad school, or wait another year?

I did get accepted into a Ph. D program! I’ve been accepted at Southern Illinois Univeristy at Carbondale. However, I’m also somewhat hesitant. I’ve only been accepted to one school out of the twelve that I applied to. As such, Carbondale isn’t offering funding. Also, Carbondale specializes in pragmatism (based on what I’ve looked at on the website and from the Philosophical Gourmet), something that I’m not really interested in and Continental philosophy seems to be a second priority which is something that I wanted to continue my education in.

Part of me does want to go because I have been accepted, and here’s my chance to continue. However, another part of me wants to delay for another year and write an even better writing sample and statement of purpose. Yet, I realize that this may be a risk and that if I do delay for another year, then I may not be accepted if I apply for next year. I’m guessing that the thing that may have brought me down were my grades which was a GPA of 3.33.

This is what I wrote to various friends and professors for advise.

Here are the reasons to go:

1. Waiting for another year runs the risk of not being accepted at all next year, thus why ruin your bet? You should not risk it and go for it now.
2. Just go right now, and then after the first year, transfer to another school.
3. The economy is going down. The chances of being accepted next year might be worse, especially with no funding.
4. I should go but apply to other schools. If I get accepted, then I’ve only lost a little time and money; if I don’t get accepted, I already have a year under my belt at Carbondale. By this time, I already have some knowledge if the program is suited for me or not.
5. Even though Carbondale isn’t suited to my interests, I will still get a good education so I might as well go while the “iron is hot.”

Here are the reasons not to go:

1. MONEY!!!! or I should say lack thereof. Plus if I go, I’ve got loans to pay off (not to mention the loans I’m still paying off from my MA).
2. Suppose you went and you got the PhD, you run the risk of not getting job security after that. Sure you’ve got the PhD, but then you’ve got to think about where to go from there.
3. Take a year off, write a kick-ass writing sample, do better on the GRE’s, and that will improve your odds into getting in the school of your choice.
4. Taking a year off will give you time to reflect. Plus, you already have a job teaching philosophy, just keep working on it since that was what you were going to do anyways.
5. Most programs focus on the writing sample, so I should branch out and develop a better writing sample for next year. (By the way, my writing sample was on post-feminism. A professor advised me to branch out since most programs don’t concentrate on feminism. Also, the odds are in favor of not doing that because of the “politics.” What I mean is suppose there were two candidates that wrote about the same thing. However, the other candidate is a female. Chances are the program is going to pick the female because the topic is on feminsim and since I’m a male, the program may not pick me.)
6. Patience pays off! Don’t think about the money, think about the school itself. If the school sounds good, then go for it. But based on what I’ve said above, it’s not to my interests so I should wait. There’s nothing wrong with waiting.

With all this being said, I’m still considering on what to do.

If it’s any consolation, I’ve had two friends say I should go and three friends say I should wait.

Also, I’ve had three professors say I should wait, and three professors that say I should go.

Talk about confusing.