Susan James's Podcast: Playing 'Snap' (2) (update in italics)

Following on from my chat (see previous post) about Susan James talking about herself in a recent podcast, I shall continue to play 'snap' ♥♥♠♠♦♦♣♣! 

Since today is the Jewish New Year for domesticated animals I thought I'd discuss your point about you teaching Singer and animal ethics at the start of your career. This is also apt because Singer is a Jewish (atheist) philosopher who lost his Austrian Jewish grandparents in the Holocaust. His maternal grandfather was a psychologist who wrote an article together with Freud!

Liking Singer's Animal-friendly Ethics for all Sentient Beings - Snap!

Singer came up in my first year ethics/politics degree module and I was set an essay on him, which I wrote then submitted 2nd March 2010. In it, I support Singer's ethics and agree with his stance rather than Bernard Williams's criticisms of him. Here's some quick photos of it below:

I had no idea until this podcast in 2022 that you have an interest in Singer's arguments about animal ethics and set his text when teaching in the USA! I had come across Singer and Consequentialism in Utilitarianism and Ethics in A level Philosophy. While I was reading a book on Ethics before and during my A level, I discovered that the way I naturally think about ethical dilemmas fits Consequentialism (together with a Humanistic Situationalist Ethics) so I've thought of myself as a (humanistic/ non-religious) Consequentialist/Situationalist about Ethics since my mid to late teens.

It's always seemed a no-brainer to me that animals feel pain and, therefore, should be treated with the same consideration as humans. Going beyond Singer, I think that all species are due this consideration, whether classified as sentient or non-sentient, for instance, including sea creatures, such as hydra. I also have the same ethical consideration for all animals/sentient beings, irrespective of their mental capacity or how similar they are to humans e.g. whether it's a monkey or a worm. 

Furthermore, I apply the same to plants, trees and even natural inanimate objects. Do the latter feel pain? No. But, nevertheless, a stone, rock, sand, planets, stars, do have a psychic life even if it is very different, possibly a calmer psychic life, than the psychic life of humans, animals and even plants which have a not dissimilar life process from animals in that they are born (from a seed), need food/nutrition, grow, reproduce, move by responding to their environment by opening their petals when the sun comes out and closing them at night, and plants die. Thus, although there are differences between animals and plants, the differences are less than it appears outwardly and still points to there being a form of an inner life rather than zero psychic life. 

So, as I argued in my tutorial on this essay topic, I think that deforestation in the rainforest is unethical and so felling (non-sentient) trees causes more than only ecological harm, both to that region and globally. I see this harm done to non-sentient plants, trees, rivers, soil and so on as an additional ethical issue together with the harm done to the sentient beings who constitute the animals and wildlife there. So for me, destroying the rainforest is a triple ethical issue: my ethical consideration spans humans (indigenous tribes); sentient beings; and natural non-sentient beings. I also prefer what I think is called a 'deep ecology' approach ie. protecting ecology for its own sake, not just for human benefit/end. 

{Oh I just remembered over my cup of coffee ☕: we were asked by the tutorial tutor (MPhilStud who had just completed a BA from Cambridge uni and who marked our essays in a way I objected to by email to two male personal tutors because she had an attitude problem which was adversely affecting my marks) if we ate meat, and I was wondering what the direct relevance was to the essay title on Speciesm. 🤔 The lecturer wasn't Susan James, even though she taught it in the past!} 

I even tend to apply it to non-living, human-made artificial objects. By this I mean, for example, not 'harming' tennis racquets, even though they don't feel pain and are not alive, do not have a nervous system, brain, and so on. Perhaps because I was brought up by my mother to treat artificial objects such as dolls and toy animals ethically, with the aim of engendering empathy skills and compassion early on through imagination and play. The thinking being that if you have respect for inanimate objects then respect and empathy will follow naturally for living things not just for fellow human beings but also for nature, animals, and the solar system. This was part of her pedagogical theory which aimed to not only just develop the intellect but also emotional intelligence.

So 'Snap' for an interest in panpsychism, love of nature and concern about ecological damage too! 

I think panpsychism gives a good explanation of the world because it encourages a cohesive understanding of it. The world is not a mystery if you apply panpsychism to it, especially when understood as you explain it: through the sensing and relating to each other that takes place in the natural world. However, I think it's worth us pointing out to other philosophers that by this we do not mean to imply any form of mysticism. We are conceptualizing it through modern scientific understanding, whether earth sciences, psychology or e.g. recent research findings in botany.

In fact I was planning to do in-depth research on vitalism and panpsychism back in 2016, because I thought they sounded interesting and they are topics that come up in areas of History of Philosophy that I was already researching, especially Spinoza and Cavendish. I was at the point where I was focusing on whether they continued in any way into contemporary philosophy and assessing how well they match up with modern science, especially biology and earth sciences when a conference speaker put me off vitalism /animism/ panpsychism by making them sound like scientifically debunked theories. But then I started to reconsider this view somewhat when I watched Judy Dench's TV programme on trees in her garden and learnt more about how trees sense things and communicate with each other underground - wow! I found myself thinking back to this programme while you were discussing the relevance of nature TV programmes, such as Attenborough, to Cavendish's natural philosophy earlier this year when you were talking about Cavendish on YouTube. I had a big 'snap' moment there: I anticipated the logical conclusion to the argument you were making, thought it was a great idea and then you said what I was thinking a few seconds later! How amazing is that! We can finish each other's sentences! 🙂

On not eating meat - not a snap

Unlike you, I still eat a little meat now and then mainly because when I was putting together a nutritional diet back in around 2006 specifically for tennis training and the tour, I found out that meat has certain nutritional value, especially for muscles, not found in any other food types e.g. carnosine which reduces muscle tiredness and soreness. This is something no tennis player wants to suffer from. Substituting all the nutrients in meat and fish is not easy - I haven't figured out how vegan/vegetarian top players manage it while on the tour. There are plant alternatives but that is costly and not easily available when travelling.

I was, (and am) very much into an healthy diet because I saw it as part of tennis training and it has stuck with me ever since. It's become a habit. But I don't expect those around me to do likewise. I still keep the lifestyle of someone who is about to enter a tennis tournament any minute now. 

However, during the pandemic I didn't eat meat and found I didn't miss it. I still love eating fish, though. Do you eat fish?🤔 You don't mention. So, are you vegan? A vegetarian? Neither, you don't eat meat out of ethical consideration for animals? Does this extend to choosing products that are cruelty free and vegan, such as, make-up and/or Rainforest Alliance food and drink products? It does for me even though I still eat meat. Kosher is preferred but not always possible. My mother and I haven't cooked raw meat for 8 years now. That's big because my mother was brought up in a heavily meat eating household and granny introduced me to meat when I was 1 and cooked me loads of meat meals, especially during my childhood, which were delicious. However, my father substituted meat with quorn and tofu.🤔 Not sure why because he happily ate meat and his mother was always cooking meat! He also had a 'thing' about cooking bacon for breakfast so obviously wasn't a vegetarian or vegan! My mother has always hated bacon and didn't eat it growing up. I don't like it because it's salty, strong tasting and not kosher, so we never eat it now we can cook what we want.🙂

I see nothing wrong with you influencing students! If some stopped eating meat as a result of your teaching/set reading, good for them! They are old enough to make up their own minds. And those that do stop eating meat are probably those who already are more concerned about ethical treatment of animals. Besides, lecturers are constantly trying to get you to see 👀things their way. Not that you do that, more's the pity, because, it then means that students are only exposed to certain (institutionally accepted) views which is not what education is about.

But snap for the ethical principles behind it:

✅ethical, empathic compassion for animals, nature, the universe and, of course, human beings. 

Not causing pain or harm is a fundamental ethical principle for both of us. I totally admire your ethical reasons for not eating meat. That's the ideal! I'm getting there I just haven't quite got there yet. But, I'm working on it. Without knowing this about you, I always felt you are a very ethical person who has enormous sensitivity, compassion and empathy which embraces everything in the world not just people. I find this a very endearing personality trait 🤗