Victor Frankenstein, Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, Switzerland discussed on Ideas

Ideas
|

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

Occurred. That famous challenge took place at Lake, Geneva Switzerland in June, eighteen sixteen. It was a dark and rainy night. No, really? It was. They all sat around the fire reading German ghost stories. That's when Lord Byron challenged his guests to write something creepy themselves. And Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley's famous go story is known to us all as Frankenstein. In that novel, the monster is vegetarian. I must have read Frankenstein or the modern permit is that's the full title for the first time about twenty five years ago for school, and I've seen the creature or monster portrayed. I don't know how many times and film and TV, but never not once. Did I notice that it was vegetarian, my food is not that of man. I do not destroy the lamb and the kid to glut my appetite. Acorns and berries afford me sufficient nourishment. This conversation happens when he asks Victor Frankenstein, the scientists to create a partner for him. My companion will be of the same nature myself and we'll be content with the same fair. We shall make our bed of dried leaves. The sun will shine on us as on man. The picture I present to you is peaceful and human. She creates a monster whose vegetarianism is very related to all of these beliefs of a better world, peaceful world of the pathetic Rian individual who who lives a nuts and berries. What figure Frankenstein's creature says about refusing to eat. Meat was a surprise, at least for me. But the novel had another surprise. The way the monster itself is put together. I collected bones from charnel houses and disturbed with profane fingers, the tremendous secrets of the human frame. The monster fascinating late is not only made from human corpses. Victor Frankenstein also went into slaughter, houses the dissecting room and the slaughterhouse furnished many of my materials and often did my human nature turn with loathing from my occupation whilst Stiller on by an eagerness which perpetually increased. I brought my work near to conclusion. The creature being made of both human and animal recognizes that killing animals for food violates a connection between us after all, humans are animals too. Humans are animals to that short statement gets right to the heart of the matter of meat. Is there any meaningful difference between us and non human animals? We've been asking that question for a few thousand years and we're still asking it which brings us back to where we started back to the idea of animal rights. The concept of animal rights is confused, philosopher Roger scrutiny. It's based on this that animals like human beings older, their affairs through moral ideas and benefit from us doing the same on both those summons of false because if you attribute rights to an animal, then you have to look at it as though it were three being making conscious decisions for self and you have to attribute duties to it, shoot is that it couldn't possibly fulfill cats of. For instance, would become mergers of the highest order horses could no longer be looked after as we look after them because it would be constant interfering with the rights to free movement. The fact is it's a concert hamper everything that we need to do with them, but to rights necessarily entailed duties on those that we stole them such as babies or the stabled. Well, this is a big question. My my view is the following that we human beings have developed what I wanna calculus of rights and duties and on a to maintain order and peace among ourselves because we are aggressive creatures who need to live in communities. Of course, there are cases like infants disabled people, and so on who've yet to enjoy this props content Joyal this, but they are treated precise exceptions. But in the case of animals, this isn't the way even at the best of times they can possibly. Manage their affairs. They do it in a different way through the exercise of Gretchen, but this is a completely different older of things. And when we when we step in, we step in with our human values, one of which is compassion, kindness, don't treat animals. They were miss things so they couldn't suffer and so on. We have to look after them and respect them as living beings and as beings capable of suffering. I think that's what a old fashioned Fama would do what what we do. I mean, we have little with a few pigs. And. The natural way of doing it, but that is not the same thing as giving them rights. In fact, you've argued quote, not only is it permissible for those who care about animals to eat meat. They have a duty to do. So. How is it a duty now that may being a bit provocative. So did mean to say that if we stopped eating meat, then there are all kinds of bad effects that would follow for the animals. It would otherwise eat, provided they, you know, let's face it, pigs. Have John a good time if properly matured. But if we didn't eat them, they wouldn't exist tool. And I think this is true of an awful lot of animals for that reason. We might have Jucci tools on most to go on eating them. But if that's their only purpose on on earth for us to eat them, does that. Is that justify it? Yeah. Well, what's your purpose on you? Haven't even got that one. I

Coming up next