Chomsky on Vegetarianism

From Z Magazine, November 2001 (I think, though it seems to come from an interview from between '93 and '96.)

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• xtranormal

[namesake1]

@crothersdaniel Surely you believe that murder and many other great immoral activities should be enforced and protected against? I think you do believe in enforcing opinions on others. The question is, to what extent and to what purpose?

[JaredHutcheson1]

The Inuit do not have a choice. They live in the Arctic circle.

Anyway this is really a philosophical issue. I have friends whose families raise cows and chickens and I think that's perfectly fine, but I think what goes on in factories should be illegal. I think the real error in judgement arises when people assume that non-human animals have more in common with plants and fungi than they do with humans. They may not be able to convey emotions in language but be sure that they suffer greatly.

[dick391]

@JaredHutcheson1 Agreed. Lawyers can sue on the behalf of children, infants, the mentally disabled etc. when their rights have been breached. But to confer such legal rights to animals to do the same would be quite silly. If you want to pass legislation that bans certain actions against animals, fine.

Humans that are cognitively unable to participate in the legal system are an exception to the rule. On the other hand, there is not a single animal alive capable of such participation.

[JaredHutcheson1]

@dick391 I get what you're saying. What we should say is that we need a extensive and comprehensive set of laws dictating what we can and cannot do to other species, and that may include different guidelines for different species. When we say the word 'rights', it can seem to imply that the possessor can stand up for them. But then again, there's children & infants, the mentally disabled, etc. They certainly have "rights".

[dick391]

@crothersdaniel I probably have a much better understanding of that relationship than most anarchists. The difference is I'm not under any illusion that removing the state will remove force. Force exists in the absense of the state. So choose your poison. Force adminstered by a democratically elected government (by no means perfect), or force adminstered by the strongest, most coercive elements of society. Its no wonder anarchism always devolves into tyrranic rule by the few.

[crothersdaniel]

@dick391 I really think you need to learn about the relationship between 'The State' and 'Force', if you think that the former protects against the latter.

[dick391]

@crothersdaniel That's why I always have a good laugh at anarcho-socialists who believe that anarchism will bring about a worker's paradise somehow. More than likely, it would be the exact opposite. The rich and powerful can exert their power without facing legal repercussions from a democratically-elected government. Who do you think will win the "fight" without government rules? How shallow is "freedom" when you are not willing to enforce others rights to it.

[dick391]

@crothersdaniel Of course they're different, but that's not a legitimate reason for why animals are owed the non-aggression principle. That said, I'm sure you have developed your own strong moral reasoning for why they should be owed it.

At least you're honest about not wanting to enforce your opinions on others. But the irony of an anarchist system is that the end result may be much fewer freedoms than a state-enforced one. What good are your freedoms if others are "free" to take it away.

[crothersdaniel]

@dick391 Plants and animals are different by the way :p I hope I don't need to explain how. And as for laws, I am an anarchist, anti-statist, whatever you want to call it, so I don't believe in enforcing my opinions upon people.

I just think everybody will come around to it one day.

[dick391]

@crothersdaniel Many humans are also capable of living without aggression towards plants, if they wish (by eating 100% animal diets, like the Inuit) lol. But that's just a personal choice.

I'm perfectly okay with you extending non-agression to all animals at a personal level. But codifying that into law through actual legal rights should be out of the question, obviously. You are free to live that lifestyle, and I am free to live a different one.