I was reading the first page of Hofstadter’s new book, “I am a Strange Loop”, and, as usual, Hofstadter got me thinking. He begins by attempting to draw a dividing line between what has a soul and what does not, using an analogy to what animals may be ethically killed for food to demonstrate the inconsistencies and paradoxes that result when attempting to define that boundary. His own solution is essentially a compromise – he will eat certain animals, but abstain from eating others. His reasoning for choosing certain animals is not precisely made clear.

Well, I tend to view eating as an expression of a natural order, so I don’t feel precisely the same qualms he does about it, but regarding the intrinsic “presence” of a soul, I believe that the dividing line is determined by the soul’s capacity for compassion – that is, to ensure a positive outcome for all, not just itself. In essence, then, the “magnitude” of a particular organism’s soul becomes a function of its behavior rather than an intrinsic property. We can then discard the word “soul” altogether and speak from strictly utilitarian terms:

In an everyone-for-themselves world, the law is kill or be killed. No one will shed any tears for any loss of life, because everyone is only looking out for his own well being. This represents the absolutely degenerate case.

In an entirely compassionate and altruistic world, everyone looks out for everyone else. Presumably, no one starves because everyone gathers food for the good of the community (of course, how this is done without killing is a major missing detail, but an irrelevant one). This is what communism in its purest form promised, but it is of course absolutely unattainable, as the entire world has witnessed over the past century.

So let’s set these situations at opposites and speak about the area in the middle. Specifically, we’re interested in the reciprocity of the situations.

The less compassion one shows, the more likely one is to harm others to benefit himself. However, this creates a scenario (prisoner’s dilemma where the prisoner is guaranteed to proclaim you guilty) in which the only good response is opposition (i.e. you proclaim him guilty as well so you don’t get locked up). The exigencies of the situation then demand a particular type of response, and, because it’s a simple requirement, the moral opposition to this should dwindle.

Therefore, I can set my own dividing line based on the compassion of the creature.

The only remaining question now is that if I eat animals, am I demonstrating the same sort of reprehensible behavior that I spoke of before? That’s a tricky question which many people are going to answer differently, but ultimately, I believe that the amount of good one’s continued existence can engender is a counterbalance against the amount of life one is responsible for taking in the name of sustenance.