Dawkins on vegetarianism

[Cpl_Hicks]

Does anyone know whether Prof. Dawkins is a vegetarian? Given his stance on the rights of other species, I would have thought he must be - yet I've heard nothing of the kind.

Otherwise, does he have a known stance on animal rights issues?

Personally, I view atheism and animal rights as two of the most important frontier issues for humanity.

[funkyderek]

No he isn't. I recall reading that as long as animals are killed humanely, he sees no objection to eating them. Unfortunately, I can't remember where I read that but I'm sure I did. It was most likely in an interview.

[Shaker]

Does anyone know whether Prof. Dawkins is a vegetarian? Given his stance on the rights of other species, I would have thought he must be - yet I've heard nothing of the kind.

Otherwise, does he have a known stance on animal rights issues?

Personally, I view atheism and animal rights as two of the most important frontier issues for humanity.

Funkydel beat me to it: he has in the past explicitly said that he isn't a vegetarian. I've heard - and this is entirely uncorroborated, so I offer this up as no more than total hearsay from someone who had associated with the Prof. until confirmed - that in past years he was very much anti-pets, quite scornful and dismissive apparently, until the family acquired a dog (which may have been for his daughter Juliet). I also recall that when asked in a Q & A session over in the States to promote The God Delusion if he loved his dog, he replied 'yes' - that shouldn't be too hard to substantiate. I've heard some people say he used to be seen walking the dog fairly often around Oxford.

As for animal rights, he's never made any official pronouncement except he has inveighed, passionately and often, against the idea of speciesism and the so-called automatic "superiority" of one species (our own) above all others. Not quite animal rights, I agree, but anti-animal rights has to rest on an attitude of speciesism and animal rights groups/individuals frequently base their position on attacking such attitudes.

In The God Delusion there is one small footnote against animal rights extremists who use violence and intimidation to further their ends, but that sort of condemnation is only the sort of thing that any normal, reasonable person would say anyway.

In parting, Cpl_Hicks, I also agree with you about the importance of atheism (or, more broadly, reason and evidence-based thinking) and animal rights being of profound importance.

[Marios]

Personally, I view ... animal rights as ... of the most important frontier issues for humanity.

Putting atheism to one side, why is animal rights one of the most important 'frontier' (?) issues for humanity? Do you perceive the beginnings of a zoological revolt?
Marios

[alltruism]

I think Animal Rights is a frontier issue in the sense of humanity finally beginning to realise that when we're talking about animals its not "them and us" - we are animals too.

As atheism becomes more widespread, the Biblical concept of animals existing solely for our benefit is being thrown out and we can now recognise that animals are, in a very real sense, our cousins.

The discontinous breakdown of rights (none or almost none for animals, lots for ourselves) is being given serious thought now. Now we know there isn't a massive category divide between humans and "the animal kingdom", perhaps we will begin to assign rights in a correspondingly less discontinuous manner.

[Shaker]

Superb post alltruism. I'd say that initiatives such as the Great Ape Project and the extension in 1999 in New Zealand of certain rights to non-human primates are the first steps along this road.

[Marios]

I think Animal Rights is a frontier issue in the sense of humanity finally beginning to realise that when we're talking about animals its not "them and us" - we are animals too.

We're also assemblies of matter like rocks - just because a scientific category places humans alongside something doesn't imply any kind of mystical bond/association. The Naked Mole rat is the only other hairless mammal - which is rather interesting, but science isn't voodoo - a symbolic link doesn't create any automatic duties.

We are animals. We are also in the domain eucarya. We are a monogamous species with some percentage of extra-pair copulations, like several bird species.

As atheism becomes more widespread, the Biblical concept of animals existing solely for our benefit is being thrown out and we can now recognise that animals are, in a very real sense, our cousins.

That's not a Biblical concept - it's an Aristotelian concept. I think the Bible states that humanity are given dominion over the animals, but that they are expected to keep to maintain the Earth for it's own sake and had a duty of care over animals. Whereas Aristotle interpreted all animals - and all nature - as designed to support humans.

You're conflating two concepts - a scientific concept of biological ancestry and a personal normative concept of kinship. From a scientific viewpoint, this is just as bad as saying "Evolution is rubbish, I'm not the nephew of a chimp", inverted to "Evolution is great, I should treat chimps like they were my uncle".

Obviously, I imagine you believe yourself to be Right and the early skeptics of evolution to be Wrong, but from someone with an interest in keeping facts separated from values, both arguments are equally spurious.

The discontinous breakdown of rights (none or almost none for animals, lots for ourselves) is being given serious thought now.

I'm afraid I've seen very little serious thought. In fact, in these three paragraphs you have pretty much entirely summarised the level of 'serious thought' which I've seen with regards to animal rights.

'Rights' are one half of a social contract - inseparable from 'Responsibilities' - which a politically capable entity engage in. It's ridiculous to extend rights to creatures which cannot engage in a political process or ever discharge responsibilities.

More candidly, a sensible argument admits that animal rights advocates don't want animals to suffer because they don't like to see/think about animals suffering. A honest approach equates nature to historical artefacts as something which - a given society feels - has a value which the society should act to preserve (within reasonable economic limits).

Now we know there isn't a massive category divide between humans and "the animal kingdom"

I see. So you really think that the only thing which divides 'animals' from 'people' in the minds of the public over the last 2 millenia, is the belief that we're biologically distinct? So, properly educated scientists would have no problem with bestiality? How many animals have you slept with - or do you perceive their to be a 'massive category divide' between sleeping with humans and sleeping with animals? Are you really sure you don't see a 'massive category divide' (bear in mind, there is more than one way to apply a categorisation) between 'non-human animals' and 'humans'?

perhaps we will begin to assign rights in a correspondingly less discontinuous manner.

Leaving aside why, precisely how would you do that?
Marios

[Katherine]

Been veggie 20 years, I have!

[Marios]

Car accident?
Marios

[Katherine]

Car accident?
Marios

Nope - a noodly appendage applied rather too forcefully......