"Suppose then that I enjoy swinging a baseball bat. It happens that in front of the only place to swing it stands a cow. Swinging the bat unfortunately would involve smashing the cow's head. But I wouldn't get fun from doing that; the pleasure comes from exercising my muscles, swinging well, and so on. It's unfortunate that as a side effect (not a means) of my doing this, the animal's skull gets smashed. To be sure, I could forego swinging the bat, and instead bend down and touch my toes or do some other exercise. But this wouldn't be as enjoyable as swinging the bat; I won't get as much fun, pleasure, or delight out of it. So the question is: would it be all right for me to swing the bat in order to get the extra pleasure of swinging it as compared to the best available alternative activity that does not involve harming the animal? Suppose that it is not merely a question of foregoing today's special pleasures of bat swinging; suppose that each day the same situation arises with a different animal. Is there some principle that would allow killing and eating animals for the additional pleasure this brings, yet would not allow swinging the bat for the extra pleasure it brings?"
I find this to be the most convincing and troubling argument against eating animals in the modern world. Yet I still eat them. What does that say?
Doesn't he actually end up with an argument against this point? We're having burgers tonight for Lost Tuesday, so please respond soon.
ReplyDeleteMy memory of one his books is that he doesn't find this argument convincing, but I'm unable to find anything on the net about this. I know he was a vegetarian so possibly he was convinced.
ReplyDeleteTry to make sure the burger meat is as thoroughly enjoyable as possible (so as to maximize the good born from this evil), and that the meat comes from an animal who had a relatively ok life. This will make you less of a baseball bat wielding monster.