Unreal

I was reading an essay about one person's ethical qualms about eating lab-grown meat. The broad point they were making as that eating "replica" meat showed a lack of respect for the animals being replicated. By way of analogy, the author presented the example of "Mr. X" and a sex-doll designed to replicate a woman. "Imagine Mr X" requests the author, "doing something to a woman-replicant doll that would be (whatever it was) undeniably degrading if done to an actual woman." This is unethical, because "Mr X's behaviour towards the woman-replicant represents a failure of respect towards womankind."

It reminded me of an online debate I had with some readers of The Atlantic (back when The Atlantic still allowed reader comments). about an article (now locked behind a subscription wall) about a man who owned a pair of Real Dolls, one he considered his wife, and the other his mistress. According to the subtitle "Davecat lives with his wife and mistress, both dolls, and thinks synthetic partners are ideal for those who don't want to deal with humans' inconsistencies." The debate centered on whether Davecat had managed to dodge acting unethically by effectively pretending that "Sidore Kuroneko" and "Elena Vostrikova" were the sort of impossibly pliant and consistent women that he felt he could have a relationship with, or if the desire for companionship that avoided dealing with other humans' (or maybe specifically women's) inconsistencies was unethical in itself.

I was on team ethical, mainly because the alternative struck me as a bit too close to thoughtcrime. Besides, I (and I suspect, a lot of other people) could sympathize with Davecat wanting a partner (or partners) would never lie, cheat or be otherwise disagreeable or critical; even if, in the course of the debate, there were people who felt that braving such slings and arrows were the price of admission to a life of something other than abject loneliness. And so in the case of lab-grown meat, I look at it the same way; a person can have their respect for living animals, and eat their hamburger, too. Insisting that the only complete abstention from meat is the only ethical way of life, because anything else is disrespectful, again, raises the specter of thoughtcrime.

And the problem with thoughtcrime is how does on prove oneself innocent, given that it's not possible to conclusively demonstrate what one is thinking? Not to mention the simple fact that demanding people think a certain way does nothing for anyone else. An animal is no more harmed or injured (let alone slaughtered) by a person eating a synthetic burger than they are by that person eating lettuce. At least with the cases of "Mr. X" or Davecat, one can make the point that living women might be put out or made uneasy by their relationships with their replicant partners. But even that can be iffy. I've met any number of people who are disturbed by the idea that others consider their values or spirituality to be false or mistaken. I am unfamiliar with a school of ethics that, on such a basis, claims that in the face of such discomfort, others must convert.

But still, it was an interesting piece, and I'm glad that I came across it. Understanding the thinking of others, and how people connect seemingly disparate ideas, broadens the mind.