I suspect one reason (among many) that AW has trouble getting traction as a partisan issue (or mainstream issue—partisan or not) is an often tacit, sometimes-almost-subconscious concern people have about a slippery slope into utilitarian radicalism. If we start worrying about AW for mammals, why not birds, fish, insects, wildlife …?
But with, say, civil rights, there is a clear stopping point—all people (within the country) get the same civil rights and that’s it. No slippery slope.
From a rhetorical standpoint, getting more people interested in AW may require finding ways to frame the issue in a way that quells this concern about the slippery slope. Whatever one thinks about full-on hedonistic anti-speciesm (the basis of Singer’s Animal Liberation if I recall), it doesn’t sell.
Though touting high-brow philosophy is never good politics, I think many people are looking for a kind of framework to allow them to care about AW without going “all the way”—something that fear of the slippery slope currently prevents them from doing.
There are a bunch of non-utilitarian philosophers/ethicists that have put forward frameworks for caring about animals that don’t seem lead to a slippery slope or at least are much too vague to pin down what they do and don’t lead to (even better!). If and when there is a need to have a philosophical foundation (or at least purport to have one), perhaps these frameworks should be gestured at rather than hedonistic utilitarianism.
I completely agree. Animal welfare seems hard to sell as a political issue for that very reason, but I still have some hope. I think that reducetarianism sells better than pushing for veganism because people do not need to go the full way.
Yeah, maybe there are a few other reasons too like people not caring enough about animal welfare, lobbying from meat companies meaning both parties do not take up the issue, and even the overwhelming skepticism of veganism by even the most moderate of people. I completely agree with the fact that more data is needed to see to what extent any of this might be true.
I suspect one reason (among many) that AW has trouble getting traction as a partisan issue (or mainstream issue—partisan or not) is an often tacit, sometimes-almost-subconscious concern people have about a slippery slope into utilitarian radicalism. If we start worrying about AW for mammals, why not birds, fish, insects, wildlife …?
But with, say, civil rights, there is a clear stopping point—all people (within the country) get the same civil rights and that’s it. No slippery slope.
From a rhetorical standpoint, getting more people interested in AW may require finding ways to frame the issue in a way that quells this concern about the slippery slope. Whatever one thinks about full-on hedonistic anti-speciesm (the basis of Singer’s Animal Liberation if I recall), it doesn’t sell.
Though touting high-brow philosophy is never good politics, I think many people are looking for a kind of framework to allow them to care about AW without going “all the way”—something that fear of the slippery slope currently prevents them from doing.
There are a bunch of non-utilitarian philosophers/ethicists that have put forward frameworks for caring about animals that don’t seem lead to a slippery slope or at least are much too vague to pin down what they do and don’t lead to (even better!). If and when there is a need to have a philosophical foundation (or at least purport to have one), perhaps these frameworks should be gestured at rather than hedonistic utilitarianism.
I completely agree. Animal welfare seems hard to sell as a political issue for that very reason, but I still have some hope. I think that reducetarianism sells better than pushing for veganism because people do not need to go the full way.
Are we sure it’s for that very reason?
Seems plausible, but would be nice if we had data around this
Yeah, maybe there are a few other reasons too like people not caring enough about animal welfare, lobbying from meat companies meaning both parties do not take up the issue, and even the overwhelming skepticism of veganism by even the most moderate of people. I completely agree with the fact that more data is needed to see to what extent any of this might be true.