The difference....
Between Indian libertarians and American.
Consider these three posts on animal cruelty all by American bloggers. Notice the nuance involved and admission of the the complexities that ethics present. For my life, I can't imagine their Indian counterparts having this sort of discussion. Few exceptions aside libertarian (or for that matter even nationalist) discourse in Indian blogosphere is tediously formulaic. As I mentioned in earlier post, India suffers from unabashed imitation and lack of original thinking.
Wilful ignorance is our bane.
And apologies for any Aym Gramd-ism.
Update: As usual the most insightful intervention is by criminalsJules: I don't eat dog either.
(Via)
Vincent: Yeah, but do you consider a dog to be a filthy animal?
Jules: I wouldn't go so far as to call a dog filthy but they're definitely dirty. But, a dog's got personality. Personality goes a long way.
Vincent: Ah, so by that rationale, if a pig had a better personality, he would cease to be a filthy animal. Is that true?
Jules: Well we'd have to be talkin' about one charmin' m'f'n' pig. I mean he'd have to be ten times more charmin' than that Arnold on Green Acres, you know what I'm sayin'? [*]
4 comments:
I'm not sure I agree with you. The two people who establish animal rights to be boundary cases - one of them is a vegetarian and the other will only have 'humane non industrial meat'. WTF??!! If either one of them was a non vegetarian with not too much regard for the sanctity of animal life, this feeling that they have of the 'boundary condition' nature of animal rights would dissipate. I would argue that this shows an incredible amount of rationalization, of trying to fit their views on animal life with their convictions that they are libertarians.
"Okay, I'll bite the bullet. As a first principle, you shouldn't be able to burn a sheep alive because it's fun"
What is this if not an external projection of one's own morality that one wants codified into the law books?
There are some sentient animals other than human beings - this is more or less a fact. Whether they have rights or not is a debate that is largely independent of whether they are libetarians. The only way libertarianism would come into the picture is - If you believe that animals do not have rights and you're a libertarian, then to be consistent you cannot call for animal rights laws because that would impinge upon the freedom of those people who want to kill/eat/use those animals. If one believes that animals do have rights, where does libertarianism come into the picture at all? The only question that arises then is - what is the exact nature of the rights that they have, and what should the government do to protect these rights. One can be on either side of the libertarian debate and still be consistent with such a viewpoint.
The real problem, as I see it, is not with the 'Indian libertarians', as sweeping as that term is. The problem is with two of the posts that you have linked to, where the authors have a hard time placing their views into the ambit of their conviction that they are indeed libertarians - an attempt that I think they should not be making in the first place.
To give these three posts as examples to prove that Indian libetarian discourse suffers from imitation is, in my view, a classic case of rationalization due to preconceieved notions on your part. And as you must surely know by now, I'm not even a libertarian.
I don't place much value in originality when this originality is nothing but a euphemism for confusion.
Ritwik,
I think this is an issue where we must agree to disagree.
For me defining ethics and morality is highly subjective task.
Now I can understand and even sympathize with temptation to architect a system of ethics from scratch using clearly defined premises and straight forward conclusions.
However this is not howe it happens, we try to devise a system starting from certain social conventions and based on them try to arrive at certain basic principles. It doesn't stop at this however, many conventions stand in contradiction with these basic principles. What we do in this case is a matter of judgement.
What you are arguing in effect is that any convention which runs afoul should be discarded. What I am saying is may be such contradiction should also lead us to rethink about our premises.
Call it nuance or rationalization.
For example in case of voluntary cannabalism, or consumption of aborted foetus, what libertarianism dictates is contradictory to social convention. You are free to stick to basic principles, me I will ask for a second opinion.
PS. Surprising this is coming from someone who excoriated "his eminence" for shallow inferences
Sorry couldn't resist ;-)
Gaurav,
Agree to disagree we can. But not before ascertaining exactly what it is that we disagree on.
1)I have no problems with your non-axiomatic system of morality. I had in the past, but I am not so clear now.
2)You have issues with the nearly axiomatic nature of lbertarianism - even this I can accept as a pertinent grievance.
3) Your example of libertarian positions on animal rights - this I disagree with. For reasons that I have outlined in my first comment, one's views on animal rights are largely independent of whether one is a libertarian or not.
4) Your stand on Indian libertarianism being essentialy an imported construct that shows our intellectual slavery - this I strongly disagree with. Every movement has its torchbearers. If I was a follower oof Vedanta, then irrespective of nationality, I'd have to look towards India. If I was a libertaian, my ideologues will necesarily be westerners - this is due to the hisory of the movement. When you substantiate this using an animal rights example that I feel is not relevant in the first place, your accusation seems all the more unfair to me.
5) On voluntary cannibalism, the libertarian stand is not just unconventional, but also impractical. In an ideal world where there was no fraud on the 'voluntary' aspect, it'd work. In the real world, it will easily become an easy escape route for murderers. They wont even have to deny the Actus Rhesus (the actual act) part of the crime, and only fraud the Mens Rea (motive) aspect. I think it is contradictory for a philosophy that prides itself in being practical despite being extremist-ish in nature to have a viewpoint that is so obviously impractical. Consumption of aborted foetuses - have never even thought about that.
p.s His eminence is given to making rather quick and hard conclusions. This doesn't necessarily represent an intrinsic flaw with Indian libertarianism as such, though.
Ritwik,
1. Thanks, my aim in life is to maxamize confusion and chaos.
2. Yes that is true.
3. I guess what you are saying is that people take positions depending on what they feel about animals. This is certainly right.
I am vegetarian, so I have a rather high level of sensitivity towards animal, you, on the other hand may not be that sensitive.
However the issue is that libertarianism aspire to be GUT (Grand Unified Theory) for Social studies, in general, and ethics in particular, and it does so using a allweather set of axioms.Hence animal right is very much pertinent.
4.Oh dear ! I want to go to Oprah and cry buckets for being misunderstood. Look, I don't object against importing from west, in fact I believe that for India to prosper it need many things to learn from the west, and contrary to what you may expect,it is not just limited to science or technology. What I oppose is perceived lack of critical thinking or ability to take cognizance of context or inability to conceive of a suitable framework, now you may say that I am hallucinating but that is the way I perceive.
5. I don't think voluntarily cannabalism is impractical. One just have to make a will in present of witness and get it registered it duly. But to me it is not the problem of practicality. I find the very notion of cannabalism abhorrent, and if I may be excused for using the term, evil. I will go further,
And I say this even though I am a big time fan of Robert Heinlein.
I am even against suicides.
6 By the way even your conclusion that H.E. is rather hasty is also a perception.
OT Dont you think you should restart blogging.
Post a Comment