The Inconsistent Triad

In this post Julia Galef explains how people are (un)surprisingly capable of believing contradictory things and not being aware of the contradiction. She then suggests that "the Penrose triangle is an apt visual metaphor for what contradictory beliefs must look like in our heads." 

One of the examples she uses of a contradictory set of beliefs is:

1. “The reason it’s not okay to have sex with animals is because they can’t consent to it.”
2. “Animals can’t consent to being killed and eaten.”
3. “It’s fine to kill and eat animals.”

I leave my readers to reflect on this inconsistent triad as they munch on their Eid-ul-Azha lunch. 

Happy Eid everyone!

Comments

Alec Lindsay said…
There are many questions which arise from this post. I'll put just one. How do we know whether an animal understands consent? I follow the argument that there are questions of responsibility here, and that the ability of the animal being assaulted to understand the concept of consent ought not necessarily be the deciding factor in acting against it, but it's interesting all the same.
Helios said…
I think the reservations are not just because animals cant consent. The reservations are kind of the same reservations one would have when considering sex with lets say a blow-up doll or something.