Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Erin McKenna Lecture Thoughts
I was a bit confused by Dr. McKenna's ethic, as it seems to undermine itself a bit. If this is a pragmatic ethic, then the classical notion of truth is ignored in favor of what works in helping people to relate to one another and society better, right? Well, Dr. McKenna seemed to be saying that we should realize no system of laws or regulations could ever sufficiently stop the ethical violations she's concerned with. Realistic? Probably. But what effect will the acceptance of that truth have on the people attempting to create the laws and regulations? I think this would probably lead them to accept a certain degree of "inevitable casualties" inherent in an imperfect system, and this seems like a very dangerous slope to slip down. Pragmatically, wouldn't it be better to just tell people that we can create sufficiently expansive or effective laws, and let them keep trying to better them? Why should we realize that no laws will ever be good enough? She says that this will allow opposing sides to work together, but I don't realize how that will necessarily happen. I may not be understanding her talk, and I definitely don't have a firm grasp of pragmatic thought, but that's one of the problems I saw.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
McKenna is arguing that there needs to be a change in the perspective at which we look at animals would be important in changing how we treat them. She is not saying we need treat them like PETA says but we need to look at them as part of community and not as things. If this can be done then things can be changed. If this change in perspective is not done there will be no laws that can be enforced when there are always new ways in which to exploit animals or ignore the laws. Laws can help I think was her point but first we need to change our attitude before those laws can do anything.
ReplyDelete