?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Semiformalishmaybe

Naked Intuition

As an example of a naked conclusion in my political philosophy that stands mostly contrary to some established concepts in my political philosophy, I accept as reasonable that Muslims, Judaists, and Vegetarians who happen to be in prison should receive, on request, Halal, Kosher, or Vegetarian food provided the difficulties/costs of doing so are not excessive. As of present, I can't justify this, and I'm not sure what other dietary preferences should be accomodated nor am I comfortable generally thinking that the state should become engaged with cultural communities in that kind of way (I am comfortable with some engagement; I do support marriage as a legal institution). This is one of the topics on the back burner for consideration.

I suspect we all have such naked intuitions/conclusions in our political philosophies.

Comments

One argument for accommodating at least vegetarians is that for some vegetarians, eating meat causes large amounts of digestive discomfort--I looked briefly and couldn't find any science on this, but there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that mostly even controls for psychosomatic reactions (although not for fat content, which Snopes suggests may be most of the cause). Plus veg options tend to be really easy to accommodate. Maybe somewhat beside the point of your philosophical question, but.
As far as I understand, the microbes in our guts are reasonably tuned to our diets. On the rare occasion I have meat I get terrible indigestion and feel ill for a few days; I am reasonably sure it's not psychosomatic. However, I am sure that given enough time on a with-meat diet the discomfort would fade as the relative proportions of the microbes shift. But I might be wrong about the mechanism.
"large amounts of digestive discomfort"

Have you ever eaten jail food? It's pretty much designed to cause digestive discomfort either way.