First post, glad you are reading. Let me say that I don't know where this entire thing will go. Nevertheless, I am going to dive into this first post without a clear scope.
Today, I watched a documentary on Netflix, Ayn Rand: In Her Own Words. From this you might accurately deduce that I follow the works of Rand. Anyhow, Netflix made a recommendation for me and I thought that I would take up this suggestion; so, I watch Examined Life.
Let me describe the impact of watching this documentary. I have owned my domain name for a couple of years now and I use it for various purposes; I have always intended on establishing some sort of web presence, but I have procrastinated in doing so. Rather quickly, I was ready to stop watching this documentary and get on with something else because it simply did not mesh with my own way of thinking. However, as the title of the documentary explains, I decided to continue on for a moment and examine my thoughts towards various arguments. Doing so motivated me to get this web presence going so that I could share this writing.
So, what was the subject that so stirred me? The documentary has several segments with different modern philosophers and while I have to say that I disagreed with nearly every statement uttered, I found myself nearly resorting to a shouting match with my television based on an argument made by Peter Singer. Let me first state that I regrettably do not recall the school of ethics for which his argument may be classified; it has been some time since my ethics course in undergraduate studies. Singer makes an interesting statement about expensive shopping in New York City. To sum it up, he is making an ethical argument against purchasing expensive items. In the example, he states purchasing expensive shoes is immoral. To support his argument, he plays devil's advocate and suggests that spending money on the shoes doesn't harm anyone and then suggests that it is wasting the opportunity to help someone else with that money as a counter-argument. Singer creates a scenario where a child appears to be in distress in a shallow pond. The passerby notices that if he does not act that there is no one else nearby to act. In this situation, Singer states that there is a great potential that the passerby will ruin his shoes, but that most people would agree that saving the child would be the right thing to do... and I would fully agree with the decision to act.
The problem I have with the overall premise is that Singer does not understand economist, apparently. The premise of his argument is that by purchasing the shoes, one is forgoing using the money for other purposes... which is completely true. However, he further clarifies his position by stating that purchasing the shoes only benefits the self and by deciding to help another one can claim ethical superiority. This simply isn't the case. By purchasing the shoes, regardless of their price, the purchaser is benefiting from the shoes to his/her own satisfaction. In addition, since the purchase was made freely by all parties involved, the seller also benefited from the decision, in addition to every person throughout the value chain, from acquiring raw materials to assembly, marketing, and distribution. That pair of over-priced shoes potentially impacted thousands of people, directly and indirectly, for the better. Employees of all of the companies throughout the value chain were able to earn a wage that can be used for general satisfaction, education, shelter, food, etc. Stakeholders in the companies receive their associated benefits, in the same.
My argument would be that no economic decision is immoral or unethical so long as it does not directly perpetuate the use of force against another.
Singer also goes on to discuss the morality of eating meat. While this was not nearly as interesting to me, I will briefly share some of my observations. Singer states that being human does not give us a right to determine how another species is to be used. What Singer fails to extrapolate is that even plants are living organisms. We must survive... no organism exists simple for the purpose of immediately giving up its life. As humans, it is part of our natural diet to eat meat; this is proven through evolutionary studies, dietary requirements, dental examination, and through basic reasoning. I will not even entertain the idea that it is morally indefensible to eat plants; as such, since it is morally acceptable to eat plants, it is also morally acceptable to eat meat. How can one justify otherwise? It is done throughout the entire animal kingdom. There are even some plants that eat insects. While Singer may not decide to eat meat, it does not give him an intellectual platform to suggest that others are wrong for doing so. Obviously, as a free individual, he can express his beliefs just the same as me.
Nevertheless, I contemplated a perspective for which I disagree. Perhaps Netflix was right.
