Reading these articles has been an extremely interesting cap to this class. Throughout this class we have explored different aspects of environmental ethics and animal liberation. These readings I found to be particularly interesting encompassing both of these themes.
If I had read these presentations a month ago I probably would have found them interesting. However, with a different lens after having learned about many of the points of view in environment ethics reading through these presentations has had different significance. I think that one word that has stuck out to me while reading is the concept of holism. When we break down these issues a lot of them come down to the same problem which is that we have lost connection with the world around us. From my perspective of pollution we have learned about many of the problems involving resources and pollution. The solution to the issue of pollution is not so cut and dry. We have created a society where in order to function properly waste is created and this fact while undesirable is a reality. However, what I feel we can do is cut down on the amount of waste that is created and develop more just ways in dealing with the waste that is created. Part of the solution I feel is technological in creating and developing technology that produces less waste and uses resources more effectively. This part of the solution is engineering by nature, and I will elaborate upon no further. However, the next part of the solution is simple, it involves consuming less. Our culture has groomed us to be consumers where the entire economy is focused around the production and sale of goods that for the most part are not crucial to our survival, and are designed to break down and we acknowledge this and have a name for this term (planned obsolescence). In effect our consumerism has accelerated the creation of pollution and accelerated our consumption of resources. I think that this is where the relevance of Hardin's text comes into play. Hardin's 'lifeboat' metaphor operates under the assumption that we are near exhaustion of resources and that there now exist conflict for resources and the problem of pollution is becoming extreme. The result of using less resources will mean that less strain will be put on each of the 'lifeboats'. However, even if we reduce our consumption waste is still created. One of the issues that was brought up by Wenz is the issue of how waste must be dealt with. Our capitalist society has the consequence of favoring those with wealth because they can afford the luxury of having toxic waste dealt with out of their sight and mind. This means that those without adequate resources are forced to deal with the responsibility and consequences of dealing with waste. I believe that instead of all LULU sites existing in poor communities, instead each community should be responsible for dealing with their own waste. Another fault of capitalist society is that money dictates how waste is distributed, which means that inevitably responsibility for waste will fall upon those of lower economic standing. Thus, my argument is for straying away from capitalism.
Many of the problems that are a cause of pollution are the result of overdevelopment. Referring back to the holism argument, we see that part of the problem is that we have lost track of our connection with the wilderness. We just like any other animal are part of the ecosystem, part of the problem with consumption (other than pollution generated) is that we destroy the land that is around us. As we destroy and make more land arable and inhabitable we create the ability to accommodate additional population. As population grows we generate all of the subsequent problems, such as pollution. For us to better understand the world we live in we must first be able to see ourselves as what we are, which is animals that are part of an ecosystem. Because all of the walls that we have put up to distinguish us from animals, it takes a near death experience such as the one experienced by Plumwood. Plumwood was attacked by a crocodile and this caused her to realize that this animal had no malice but was just saw her as a meal just as any other creature. A realization like this can help us to see that just as towns are locales for us to live, the woods are a habitat for animals. However, if the previous reasons for preservation have not been sufficient Nelson provides 30 additional examples examples for why wilderness should be preserved.
In conclusion, while pollution and wilderness preservation may not seem related they both are relevant when consider the welfare of our larger ecosystem. By preserving more land we can limit the population growth and therefore we can limit our production of pollution. By preserving wilderness we sustain the value of ecosystem. However, as noted both of these objectives are difficult to achieve in a capitalist society because there is little extrinsic value in preserving wilderness, and even less value in slowing production to reduce pollution.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Prompt 13
Prompt 1
Prompt 10
In Prompt 1, I chose to write about whether eating animals is wrong because they feel pain. I discussed several points in this article including the idea that we have become so removed from the process of slaughtering animals that is has become increasingly easier eat meat without having to think about the process. I also went into talking about the fact that eating meat is natural because it occurs in nature between other animals and that this allows ecosystems to function. I also talked about how I wanted to hunt to resolve this problem that I had regarding the disconnect between animal and food. In Prompt 10 I discussed about how ecological ethic is an evolutionary phenomena that comes about from people realizing that working together as a community helped us to provide easier and that as a result of nature we should expand this inclusiveness. I also talked about my acceptance of the idea that land ethic is not related to any other morality but that ecological ethics is a paragon of virtue in itself. Callicott also talks about the good of the ecosystem trumping the good of any specific species. Promoting the idea that the good of the whole is greater than the good of any individual parts.
I found it really interesting to go back and look at my first post for this assignment. I think it is because I believed in land ethic already, but did not know yet that such a concept existed. I realize reading my post back that I never really talked about the pain of the animal. I think that this is because (as bad as it sounds) the welfare of the individual animals that we eat is not particularly important to me. I was more concerned with the philosophy surrounding the issue of eating meat. To reinforce this idea looking back I used the rationalization that if other animals eat meat in nature than why is bad for us to assume that for humans to eat other animals that it is unacceptable. Through reading texts on animal liberation I became aware of many of the issues, but never fully acknowledged any of the ideas. I felt that all of them overlooked the simple facts of the world. In Prompt 10 I was able to connect the dots where my rationalization in Prompt 1 fell short. I now feel that eating animals is not wrong if it is done in balance, for the act of animals eating other animals is part of the good that makes up a biotic system. When I feel that eating meat is bad is when our greed causes us to do irreparable damage on the environment. I feel that this idea is expressed to some extent when I cited in Prompt 1 that meat consumption in the last couple of decades has increased. I realized that this was wrong but could not put a finger on why, until I realized that for us to consume all of this additional meat, land had to be turned from habitats to pastures destroying some of the good of the ecosystem. Resources such as water and nutrients in the soil have been lost and as a result the biotic community in that area even if reclaimed by nature will never exist in the same manner.
The growth from the Prompt 1 to Prompt 10 has helped me to include a lot more ideas into my morals regarding the world around us. Anyone who has been to the top of a large secluded mountain understand the feeling of understanding that we are so small in the grand scheme of things. I feel that the relation between these texts has made me realize that we are just a part of the whole that makes up the biotic community of earth. This is not to say that we need to go back to living in teepees, but we do need to consider the impact that we have, and also understand our connection and dependence on the ecosystems we live in. I feel that the process by which we can do this is simple, it involves getting out doors. This summer I am starting a garden and environmental stewardship program at a summer camp in Maine. This class had made me realize how important this project is because the goal of the project is to get kids to understand where food comes from, how energy is returned to the environment, and finally about the amount of waste we produce. When I decided to become a part of this project I just thought it would be a good opportunity to give back and help children understand the significance of gardening. I am realizing now the other types of implications that learning about teaching younger people a respect for the environment so perhaps they will not have to be 21 years old before they realize the connection and responsibility that we have to the world around us.
Prompt 10
In Prompt 1, I chose to write about whether eating animals is wrong because they feel pain. I discussed several points in this article including the idea that we have become so removed from the process of slaughtering animals that is has become increasingly easier eat meat without having to think about the process. I also went into talking about the fact that eating meat is natural because it occurs in nature between other animals and that this allows ecosystems to function. I also talked about how I wanted to hunt to resolve this problem that I had regarding the disconnect between animal and food. In Prompt 10 I discussed about how ecological ethic is an evolutionary phenomena that comes about from people realizing that working together as a community helped us to provide easier and that as a result of nature we should expand this inclusiveness. I also talked about my acceptance of the idea that land ethic is not related to any other morality but that ecological ethics is a paragon of virtue in itself. Callicott also talks about the good of the ecosystem trumping the good of any specific species. Promoting the idea that the good of the whole is greater than the good of any individual parts.
I found it really interesting to go back and look at my first post for this assignment. I think it is because I believed in land ethic already, but did not know yet that such a concept existed. I realize reading my post back that I never really talked about the pain of the animal. I think that this is because (as bad as it sounds) the welfare of the individual animals that we eat is not particularly important to me. I was more concerned with the philosophy surrounding the issue of eating meat. To reinforce this idea looking back I used the rationalization that if other animals eat meat in nature than why is bad for us to assume that for humans to eat other animals that it is unacceptable. Through reading texts on animal liberation I became aware of many of the issues, but never fully acknowledged any of the ideas. I felt that all of them overlooked the simple facts of the world. In Prompt 10 I was able to connect the dots where my rationalization in Prompt 1 fell short. I now feel that eating animals is not wrong if it is done in balance, for the act of animals eating other animals is part of the good that makes up a biotic system. When I feel that eating meat is bad is when our greed causes us to do irreparable damage on the environment. I feel that this idea is expressed to some extent when I cited in Prompt 1 that meat consumption in the last couple of decades has increased. I realized that this was wrong but could not put a finger on why, until I realized that for us to consume all of this additional meat, land had to be turned from habitats to pastures destroying some of the good of the ecosystem. Resources such as water and nutrients in the soil have been lost and as a result the biotic community in that area even if reclaimed by nature will never exist in the same manner.
The growth from the Prompt 1 to Prompt 10 has helped me to include a lot more ideas into my morals regarding the world around us. Anyone who has been to the top of a large secluded mountain understand the feeling of understanding that we are so small in the grand scheme of things. I feel that the relation between these texts has made me realize that we are just a part of the whole that makes up the biotic community of earth. This is not to say that we need to go back to living in teepees, but we do need to consider the impact that we have, and also understand our connection and dependence on the ecosystems we live in. I feel that the process by which we can do this is simple, it involves getting out doors. This summer I am starting a garden and environmental stewardship program at a summer camp in Maine. This class had made me realize how important this project is because the goal of the project is to get kids to understand where food comes from, how energy is returned to the environment, and finally about the amount of waste we produce. When I decided to become a part of this project I just thought it would be a good opportunity to give back and help children understand the significance of gardening. I am realizing now the other types of implications that learning about teaching younger people a respect for the environment so perhaps they will not have to be 21 years old before they realize the connection and responsibility that we have to the world around us.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Prompt 12
For this post I have chosen to evaluate posts 5 and 6
Prompt 5 is a reflection on Regan's text: The Radical Egalitarian Case for Animal Rights. As suggested by the title Regan gives a radical defense of animal rights citing that all animals with inherent value should have equal rights as humans, because inherent value is the same in all creatures that possess it. I struggled with this concept and even found myself struggling even more with the idea that he draws a line of which creatures should receive these rights and which shouldn't without going into any great detail. Regan also fails to fully justify his idea of 'inherent value' and does not describe what it is but rather only defines the term negatively in terms of what it is not. Prompt 6 is a reflection on Warren's text: A Critique of Regan's Animal Rights Theory. In this post I sided with Warren on her critique of Regan's text. I cited several examples in Warren's text that troubled me about Regan's, and it helped me to develop more of an understanding on where I stood on the animal liberation issue.
One of the issues the issues that frustrated me about Regan's article was his classification of creatures with 'inherent value'. Regan pointed out that any creature who is a subject-of-a-life qualifies for inherent value. I found myself frustrated by this claim while writing Prompt 5 however, I was unable to rebut the argument in any sort of legitimate matter. I found the answer to my question through Warren's work. She pointed out that Regan draws a sharp line in this determination, however, in reality we do not know for sure which animals are subjects-of-a-life to which Regan responds that we must extend a benefit of the doubt to any arguments animals which it is unclear. Warren response to this argument is that we can make arguments for creatures as small as paramecium because we cannot know for sure. With this being said Warren then references that we could never swat at a mosquito and that we would need to sweep every walkway before we walked on it to make sure that we did not harm any creatures with inherent value.
Another issue that bothered me about Regan's text was his reference to including mentally handicapped and infants in our argument for rational beings. This bothered me because prior to this article my cutoff between animals and humans had been that we are superior because of our rationale and ability to problem solve in more than one method. It is then tough to include these two categories of humans into our qualification of rationale. Warren provides more than adequate responses for both of these cases, arguing for infants that it is a temporary state that all humans go through and for mentally handicapped that we extend to them equality because of the relationship that we have to them created by our ability as humans to feel compassion. I found that these explanations helped me to build my understanding and foundation for my moral on animal liberation.
Both of these posts were instrumental in my development of my stance on animal liberation. While I found that I do not agree with most of Regan's points, his article was helpful for me in establishing upper limit on the extremely liberal side of animal liberation. It helped me to see some of the arguments for animals as well as helped me to see some of the fall backs in my own interpretation of the subject. Warren's text was equally if not more important in developing my current stance because she helped me to find the flaws in Regan's argument and provide logical answers where his argument fell short. Overall, both of these texts were instrumental in determining my current stance on animal liberation.
Prompt 5 is a reflection on Regan's text: The Radical Egalitarian Case for Animal Rights. As suggested by the title Regan gives a radical defense of animal rights citing that all animals with inherent value should have equal rights as humans, because inherent value is the same in all creatures that possess it. I struggled with this concept and even found myself struggling even more with the idea that he draws a line of which creatures should receive these rights and which shouldn't without going into any great detail. Regan also fails to fully justify his idea of 'inherent value' and does not describe what it is but rather only defines the term negatively in terms of what it is not. Prompt 6 is a reflection on Warren's text: A Critique of Regan's Animal Rights Theory. In this post I sided with Warren on her critique of Regan's text. I cited several examples in Warren's text that troubled me about Regan's, and it helped me to develop more of an understanding on where I stood on the animal liberation issue.
One of the issues the issues that frustrated me about Regan's article was his classification of creatures with 'inherent value'. Regan pointed out that any creature who is a subject-of-a-life qualifies for inherent value. I found myself frustrated by this claim while writing Prompt 5 however, I was unable to rebut the argument in any sort of legitimate matter. I found the answer to my question through Warren's work. She pointed out that Regan draws a sharp line in this determination, however, in reality we do not know for sure which animals are subjects-of-a-life to which Regan responds that we must extend a benefit of the doubt to any arguments animals which it is unclear. Warren response to this argument is that we can make arguments for creatures as small as paramecium because we cannot know for sure. With this being said Warren then references that we could never swat at a mosquito and that we would need to sweep every walkway before we walked on it to make sure that we did not harm any creatures with inherent value.
Another issue that bothered me about Regan's text was his reference to including mentally handicapped and infants in our argument for rational beings. This bothered me because prior to this article my cutoff between animals and humans had been that we are superior because of our rationale and ability to problem solve in more than one method. It is then tough to include these two categories of humans into our qualification of rationale. Warren provides more than adequate responses for both of these cases, arguing for infants that it is a temporary state that all humans go through and for mentally handicapped that we extend to them equality because of the relationship that we have to them created by our ability as humans to feel compassion. I found that these explanations helped me to build my understanding and foundation for my moral on animal liberation.
Both of these posts were instrumental in my development of my stance on animal liberation. While I found that I do not agree with most of Regan's points, his article was helpful for me in establishing upper limit on the extremely liberal side of animal liberation. It helped me to see some of the arguments for animals as well as helped me to see some of the fall backs in my own interpretation of the subject. Warren's text was equally if not more important in developing my current stance because she helped me to find the flaws in Regan's argument and provide logical answers where his argument fell short. Overall, both of these texts were instrumental in determining my current stance on animal liberation.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Extra Credit 2
Compared to the first week I enjoyed this past weeks readings much more. I had a very hard time trying to relate to both Singer and Regan's arguments for animal rights. I found both of them far too restricting in the sense that I believe in animal rights however, I struggled with the idea that they possess the same worth as us. I found Warren's reading to coincide more closely with my ideas about animals and how we can exist together with them. I liked that Warren established that the reason that humans treat each other equally not because 'god said so' but rather because the price we pay for moral equality is treating others equally. Moreover, those who deserve this moral equality are those who are able 'listen to reason'. This idea was not new and was rejected as a criteria for moral equality because not all humans have the ability to reason, specifically those who are mentally handicapped and infants. Warren addresses both arguments adequately, and thus, I think that this reading was crucial in me determining where I stand on animal rights issues (these ideas were presented in Prompt 06). I believe that we should not inflict unnecessary pain to animals, however, at the same time I do not believe that any animals deserves the same moral standing as a human.
However, the articles that we have read relating to the environment have incited a lot more thought from me. Starting with the Lecture 5 on policy and economics caused me to think about things in a different light. It made me realize that being raised in a capitalist society I have adopted an analysis method without having realized it. Many of the decisions we make reflect what is important to us. Prompt 07 allowed me to analyze purchasing meat, something that I rarely think about. What it made me realize was that purchasing standard beef (that is not organic or grass fed) is a cost-benefit analysis where we weigh the cost in dollars versus the suffering of an animal. While the option exists for a more expensive beef that has been raised in a manner that reduces suffering very few people even contemplate this decision. This is only one example however, this type of analysis can be used in almost every decision we make in our life.
Another issue that was reviewed this week was about endangered species. We read Russow's text 'Why Do Species Matter?' which presented a variety of reasons about why we should preserve species. I found this text interesting because I think just about everybody acknowledges that endangered species need to be preserved, but the why is a little bit more complicated. Russow presents three different reasons about why we should preserve these animals and goes on to describe the flaws in each argument making me question the why as well. However, my anthopocentric side eventually was able for me to make sense of the issue for myself by instead of arguing for the lofty steward responsibility or intrinsic value I found that probably the most reasonable reason we can justify allocating resources to preserve a species is the assumption that these species possess some sort of extrinsic value which may some day be needed by humans.
Prompt 9 I feel I made a breakthrough because I was able to finally culminate prior knowledge from the course into Taylor's text. The final section in Taylor's text about rejecting the superiority of humans was intriguing. It made me realize how humans have developed this idea of superiority from Greek society, built upon by Judeo-Christian philosophy and then solidified in my opinion by Cartesian dualism. When we think about all of these concepts as moral relativism it is an almost earth shattering revelation. That this concept of human superiority that is held by most for the reasons listed above is nothing but something fabricated by humans we may better be able to understand our place in the world. With this mind set we can better understand and internalize texts like those written by Calicott. Calicott's text helped me to realize how ecological ethic can fit into our lives. Both Calicott and Taylor's texts together have helped me to develop my current feeling on ecological ethic and how it is not based upon anything higher but that it is something higher similarly to our morals regarding our community and that it can be achieved by having a greater respect for the land.
However, the articles that we have read relating to the environment have incited a lot more thought from me. Starting with the Lecture 5 on policy and economics caused me to think about things in a different light. It made me realize that being raised in a capitalist society I have adopted an analysis method without having realized it. Many of the decisions we make reflect what is important to us. Prompt 07 allowed me to analyze purchasing meat, something that I rarely think about. What it made me realize was that purchasing standard beef (that is not organic or grass fed) is a cost-benefit analysis where we weigh the cost in dollars versus the suffering of an animal. While the option exists for a more expensive beef that has been raised in a manner that reduces suffering very few people even contemplate this decision. This is only one example however, this type of analysis can be used in almost every decision we make in our life.
Another issue that was reviewed this week was about endangered species. We read Russow's text 'Why Do Species Matter?' which presented a variety of reasons about why we should preserve species. I found this text interesting because I think just about everybody acknowledges that endangered species need to be preserved, but the why is a little bit more complicated. Russow presents three different reasons about why we should preserve these animals and goes on to describe the flaws in each argument making me question the why as well. However, my anthopocentric side eventually was able for me to make sense of the issue for myself by instead of arguing for the lofty steward responsibility or intrinsic value I found that probably the most reasonable reason we can justify allocating resources to preserve a species is the assumption that these species possess some sort of extrinsic value which may some day be needed by humans.
Prompt 9 I feel I made a breakthrough because I was able to finally culminate prior knowledge from the course into Taylor's text. The final section in Taylor's text about rejecting the superiority of humans was intriguing. It made me realize how humans have developed this idea of superiority from Greek society, built upon by Judeo-Christian philosophy and then solidified in my opinion by Cartesian dualism. When we think about all of these concepts as moral relativism it is an almost earth shattering revelation. That this concept of human superiority that is held by most for the reasons listed above is nothing but something fabricated by humans we may better be able to understand our place in the world. With this mind set we can better understand and internalize texts like those written by Calicott. Calicott's text helped me to realize how ecological ethic can fit into our lives. Both Calicott and Taylor's texts together have helped me to develop my current feeling on ecological ethic and how it is not based upon anything higher but that it is something higher similarly to our morals regarding our community and that it can be achieved by having a greater respect for the land.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Prompt 11
http://smalls814.tumblr.com/
I have chosen to use Sean's post 10. I chose to use Shawn's argument because I really liked his interpretation of the text. I think that Shawn presented some ideas that also have added complexity to some of the issues that I thought were good arguments made by Callicott Shawn is able to show in the real world how their application is limited. He refutes the Algonkian population analogy by stating that today there are many different cultures from different landscapes and a simple relationship with nature as the Algonkians had is no longer possible in our highly complex society. I think that Shawn has denied the concept of animal liberation and has periodically throughout his posts because he believes in the superiority of our culture. I think that Shawn is trying to accept an environmentalist perspective but is having a good degree of trouble because he is able to understand the complexities of the issue. Moreover, I think that not only is his questioning healthy but crucial for developing a solid grounding for his philosophy.
One point that Sean and I disagreed upon was the real world application of Calicott's Ideas. I found myself appreciating Calicott's acknowledgement for the fact that our nuclear families welfare will always come before the welfare of the community. I think that this concept while perhaps contradictory to the overall message is more of a reflection of humanity as a species. We all have special connections with our family and to suggest that everyone would one day put this aside for the greater community is irrational. Our commitment to family is instinctual and I feel that Callicott acknowledges this and tries not to make the concept of land ethic contradict this so that it has more practicality in the real world. Moreover, I believe Callicott's goal in mentioning this argument is to say that we can still foster a land ethic without compromising the welfare of that which is important to us, but rather add it to our consciousness and way we go about life. He then puts into perspective how we can place different levels of value on our beliefs in a way that is not too radical. I found this idea to be really appealing myself because I want to adopt an environmental ethic that I can implement into my life that is logical and does not impede my ability to live my life, but rather encourages me to live a life that considers the obligation to the environment in my decisions the same way that I would think about my obligations to my community.
Sean also pokes holes in some of the holes of the argument showing how having such a loose definition of what is positive in a biotic community can allow us to justify things that are not positive for animals. He argues that if predators in nature are allowed to eat other animals then on what grounds can we reject humans using what means it has regardless of the impact if the overall impact is positive for us. While I like that Sean is questioning the limits of what we can regard as acceptable within a biotic community. And I think that this is definitely a gray area. On one hand we have the animal liberation movement which dictates that all animals have inherent worth and are individually important, while on the environmentalist side we see that the interests of the community as a whole are what is important. To establish whether it is ok or not for us to use other animals for our betterment we need to look at the larger picture. If the impact that we are making from using this animal is having an overall negative impact on our biotic community then it is negative. Perhaps the argument for environmentalism allows some leniency for animal testing because we are not damaging any ecosystem but rather raising animals as test subjects (which Singer would obviously have a problem with), to increase our overall good. Thus, I think that Sean leans more towards the ecologist point of view, but rightly sees some of the inherent problems because he understands some of its flaws. I like that Sean has pointed it out because they have made me evaluate my own morals on the subject.
I think that my views are different because I have already decided that I like the ecological ethicist point of view, especially with some of the caveats that Callicott makes for these to exist in a world where we do have a nuclear value that is of the most value to us. I think that today's reading has helped me to solidify my position because it has pointed out how the animal liberationist view is flawed and can never be fully recognized especially if we wish to lead productive lives. The ecological point of view is not only productive in guiding our decisions I believe that ultimately it will help us in making decisions about the environment that will ultimately be of benefit to the human race.
I have chosen to use Sean's post 10. I chose to use Shawn's argument because I really liked his interpretation of the text. I think that Shawn presented some ideas that also have added complexity to some of the issues that I thought were good arguments made by Callicott Shawn is able to show in the real world how their application is limited. He refutes the Algonkian population analogy by stating that today there are many different cultures from different landscapes and a simple relationship with nature as the Algonkians had is no longer possible in our highly complex society. I think that Shawn has denied the concept of animal liberation and has periodically throughout his posts because he believes in the superiority of our culture. I think that Shawn is trying to accept an environmentalist perspective but is having a good degree of trouble because he is able to understand the complexities of the issue. Moreover, I think that not only is his questioning healthy but crucial for developing a solid grounding for his philosophy.
One point that Sean and I disagreed upon was the real world application of Calicott's Ideas. I found myself appreciating Calicott's acknowledgement for the fact that our nuclear families welfare will always come before the welfare of the community. I think that this concept while perhaps contradictory to the overall message is more of a reflection of humanity as a species. We all have special connections with our family and to suggest that everyone would one day put this aside for the greater community is irrational. Our commitment to family is instinctual and I feel that Callicott acknowledges this and tries not to make the concept of land ethic contradict this so that it has more practicality in the real world. Moreover, I believe Callicott's goal in mentioning this argument is to say that we can still foster a land ethic without compromising the welfare of that which is important to us, but rather add it to our consciousness and way we go about life. He then puts into perspective how we can place different levels of value on our beliefs in a way that is not too radical. I found this idea to be really appealing myself because I want to adopt an environmental ethic that I can implement into my life that is logical and does not impede my ability to live my life, but rather encourages me to live a life that considers the obligation to the environment in my decisions the same way that I would think about my obligations to my community.
Sean also pokes holes in some of the holes of the argument showing how having such a loose definition of what is positive in a biotic community can allow us to justify things that are not positive for animals. He argues that if predators in nature are allowed to eat other animals then on what grounds can we reject humans using what means it has regardless of the impact if the overall impact is positive for us. While I like that Sean is questioning the limits of what we can regard as acceptable within a biotic community. And I think that this is definitely a gray area. On one hand we have the animal liberation movement which dictates that all animals have inherent worth and are individually important, while on the environmentalist side we see that the interests of the community as a whole are what is important. To establish whether it is ok or not for us to use other animals for our betterment we need to look at the larger picture. If the impact that we are making from using this animal is having an overall negative impact on our biotic community then it is negative. Perhaps the argument for environmentalism allows some leniency for animal testing because we are not damaging any ecosystem but rather raising animals as test subjects (which Singer would obviously have a problem with), to increase our overall good. Thus, I think that Sean leans more towards the ecologist point of view, but rightly sees some of the inherent problems because he understands some of its flaws. I like that Sean has pointed it out because they have made me evaluate my own morals on the subject.
I think that my views are different because I have already decided that I like the ecological ethicist point of view, especially with some of the caveats that Callicott makes for these to exist in a world where we do have a nuclear value that is of the most value to us. I think that today's reading has helped me to solidify my position because it has pointed out how the animal liberationist view is flawed and can never be fully recognized especially if we wish to lead productive lives. The ecological point of view is not only productive in guiding our decisions I believe that ultimately it will help us in making decisions about the environment that will ultimately be of benefit to the human race.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Prompt 10
This essay by Callicott I found to reaffirm a lot of the ideas that I have been building through this course with regards to Environmental ethics. I liked that Callicott used many scientific arguments i.e. the use of Darwinian evolution to rationalize some of the ideas that have been presented without very much scientific background. I like the idea that out of evolution we have come to respect the idea of ethics was purely evolutionary in that we "assumed limitations on freedom of action in the struggle for existence"(234). This quote suggests that even before humans were able to develop rationality we had to develop the underlying philosophy that we exist as part of something greater and that limiting our actions we are able to better exist in the environment. Furthermore, Darwin references that as the community becomes more successful in defending and providing for itself it will inevitably become more inclusive. This argument is rounded out by declaring that ethics in society and community are correlated and that as moral development increases so will our ability to develop a land ethic. I see the validity in this argument because as we analyze how we have interacted with our environment to get to the point where we are at we realize that it was through cooperation with our environment.
The next presentation is the idea of community. Darwin points out the idea of a tribes people who present the idea of 'paragons of virtue' in that they will be willing to give their life to save a member of the same tribe but would be completely indifferent about a complete stranger. And in that same vein he recognizes within the limits of the tribe people respect each other however, outside of the tribe unspeakable acts are justified. A barbaric concept yes, but does it not reflect how we interact with the world, to some degree we do not care about people outside of our community wherever you choose to draw that line. What Calicott argues is that land ethics is merely just expanding our idea of "community to include soils, water, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land" (236). I like the final culminating idea that is when the idea of 'biotic communities' become popularly accepted the concept of a 'land ethic' will inevitably follow. Calicott also goes even further to acknowledge that the next step to realizing this ideal is to establish a universal idea of ecological understanding.
I like that Calicott's ideas have real implementation acknowledging the concept of an ecosystem. I feel that past arguments that we have read enforce a concept of equality of species rather than the importance of the whole community. When we focus too much on the equality of species we get caught up in arguments about making meat eating unethical because it involves the taking of another life. However, land ethic dictates that the concern of individuals is secondary to the concern of the biotic community as a whole, allowing for the complex ideas that creatures need to eat other creatures to survive and so thus, promotes the health of the community as a whole and is thus, beneficial for the biotic community. Calicott is even able to point out why it is difficult for us to adopt these concepts because previously our moral theory has been 'psychocentric' that is concerned with the ideals of things that have conscience and that this philosophy is outdated. I was also intrigued by the fact that Calicott does not merely toss up this idea and leave it as some unattainable moral idea, he points out that our ability to understand the holism of land ethic our moral sensibilities must be shaped by ecological understanding. However, it is clear why it is hard for us to think in terms of this idea because as William Aiken points out,"massive human diebacks would be good. It is our duty to cause them. It is 90 percent of our numbers", thus pointing out Regan's idea of 'environmental fascism'.
What I found most interesting about this article was how Calicott allows a way for us to integrate land ethic into our lives. He presents that the idea while human morality and land ethic are not contradictions, alterations in our ideas of morality must be in order for the idea of land ethic to be accepted.
The next presentation is the idea of community. Darwin points out the idea of a tribes people who present the idea of 'paragons of virtue' in that they will be willing to give their life to save a member of the same tribe but would be completely indifferent about a complete stranger. And in that same vein he recognizes within the limits of the tribe people respect each other however, outside of the tribe unspeakable acts are justified. A barbaric concept yes, but does it not reflect how we interact with the world, to some degree we do not care about people outside of our community wherever you choose to draw that line. What Calicott argues is that land ethics is merely just expanding our idea of "community to include soils, water, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land" (236). I like the final culminating idea that is when the idea of 'biotic communities' become popularly accepted the concept of a 'land ethic' will inevitably follow. Calicott also goes even further to acknowledge that the next step to realizing this ideal is to establish a universal idea of ecological understanding.
I like that Calicott's ideas have real implementation acknowledging the concept of an ecosystem. I feel that past arguments that we have read enforce a concept of equality of species rather than the importance of the whole community. When we focus too much on the equality of species we get caught up in arguments about making meat eating unethical because it involves the taking of another life. However, land ethic dictates that the concern of individuals is secondary to the concern of the biotic community as a whole, allowing for the complex ideas that creatures need to eat other creatures to survive and so thus, promotes the health of the community as a whole and is thus, beneficial for the biotic community. Calicott is even able to point out why it is difficult for us to adopt these concepts because previously our moral theory has been 'psychocentric' that is concerned with the ideals of things that have conscience and that this philosophy is outdated. I was also intrigued by the fact that Calicott does not merely toss up this idea and leave it as some unattainable moral idea, he points out that our ability to understand the holism of land ethic our moral sensibilities must be shaped by ecological understanding. However, it is clear why it is hard for us to think in terms of this idea because as William Aiken points out,"massive human diebacks would be good. It is our duty to cause them. It is 90 percent of our numbers", thus pointing out Regan's idea of 'environmental fascism'.
What I found most interesting about this article was how Calicott allows a way for us to integrate land ethic into our lives. He presents that the idea while human morality and land ethic are not contradictions, alterations in our ideas of morality must be in order for the idea of land ethic to be accepted.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Prompt 09
I found this text to connect a lot of ideas that I had floating around in my head about the environment and ethics and merge them together. The class to this point has discussed at length this idea of inherent worth, and while I understand it as an idea. I don't have the same fundamental understanding of it as I do physical laws such as Newton's Laws of Motion. Despite seeing the merits of the idea of inherent worth all of the previous text have done very little to contextualize the idea for me. I feared after the first section that this article would also only present more questions about this idea by presenting more abstract concepts such the idea of well being of creatures to be an end itself. However, this text began to dig deeper into this concept by acknowledging that creatures do not necessarily understand any of these ideas but that this is not necessary for a creature to possess this worth. I also liked that Taylor was able to stray from this need to attach sentience to the idea of worth and rather that these two ideas are unrelated. It goes on further to ascribe inherent worth to not only individuals but their connection to populations and biotic communities. This value is not related to anything else but rather that this value is an end of itself.
What made me like Taylor's idea is that he did not abandon his ideas here. He goes on to start connecting this idea to nature as a whole, connecting the idea of respecting and acknowledging all organisms inherent worth collectively is the idea of 'Respect for Nature' and equates this idea to being an ultimate like human ethics and is not derived from any higher idea. This was a connection that I had failed to make yet. I have kept trying to attach respect for nature to human ethics which when we are able to understand that they are unrelated we can understand the importance. At which point Taylor goes on to explain how that this idea cannot be proven deductively and that rather this idea that respect for nature is a belief system. While some are displeased by this justification I am able to relate it because I also possess spiritual beliefs that I cannot go out defend using fact but rather I know their significance to myself.
I think that the next issue that I have seen a lot of my peers also struggle with is where humans stand among all of these ideas. A lot of posts that I have read (my own included), reflect that we all feel superior in some regards and have a perception of anthropocentricity. The biological example I find to be a little bit tough, because we have shown that we have the ability to alter interconnected elements for our own liking. I was also not satisfied by the idea of saying that humans have only been here for a short period of time and that the earth would exist (perhaps better) with out us. I don't think any logical person will refute those claims but it doesn't stop me from thinking and feeling some sort of entitlement.
However, Taylor went on to dismantle the anthropocentric argument entirely by attacking it from many angles. Taylor explains that just as we have the ability to create these characteristics that make us superior by the enrichment of civilization and goes to point out that nonhumans have equally as important characteristics that are inconsequential to us, as our characteristics are to them, that have helped their species prosper. Also just asserting that we have more inherent worth is inadequate as well and does this by presenting the ideas of upper and lower classes in classic times were clearly defined however, we now possess the ability to see that these were nothing but distinctions created by humans as well. Finally, and perhaps my favorite argument was that pertaining to religion and how is affects our perceptions. Taylor is able to break down how we our ideas of personal value have been fostered by classical ideas that have come to be taken as more or less objective which are; Greek humanism, Cartesian dualism and the Judeo-Christian concept of the Great Chain of Being. These cultural relativist ideas as result of time and acceptance I feel have become seen as an almost objective idea (extreme realist), until we really start to break down how we have endowed all of these ideas upon ourselves. Whether it ben the idea of man being a rational creature and that being our superiority, or the idea that we possess a soul, or even that god created us in his image and that we are part of a chain of being. Regardless all of the defenses that we can come up with seem to have been fabricated by us to help us understand our position on the Earth. Now that we have the ability to see this and have started to noticeably alter the world around us, we must shed this superiority and acknowledge that we are just one element in the world and that we must respect all other elements that make up our ecological community. I apologize for the long post but I enjoyed this reading and felt that it covered alot of material.
What made me like Taylor's idea is that he did not abandon his ideas here. He goes on to start connecting this idea to nature as a whole, connecting the idea of respecting and acknowledging all organisms inherent worth collectively is the idea of 'Respect for Nature' and equates this idea to being an ultimate like human ethics and is not derived from any higher idea. This was a connection that I had failed to make yet. I have kept trying to attach respect for nature to human ethics which when we are able to understand that they are unrelated we can understand the importance. At which point Taylor goes on to explain how that this idea cannot be proven deductively and that rather this idea that respect for nature is a belief system. While some are displeased by this justification I am able to relate it because I also possess spiritual beliefs that I cannot go out defend using fact but rather I know their significance to myself.
I think that the next issue that I have seen a lot of my peers also struggle with is where humans stand among all of these ideas. A lot of posts that I have read (my own included), reflect that we all feel superior in some regards and have a perception of anthropocentricity. The biological example I find to be a little bit tough, because we have shown that we have the ability to alter interconnected elements for our own liking. I was also not satisfied by the idea of saying that humans have only been here for a short period of time and that the earth would exist (perhaps better) with out us. I don't think any logical person will refute those claims but it doesn't stop me from thinking and feeling some sort of entitlement.
However, Taylor went on to dismantle the anthropocentric argument entirely by attacking it from many angles. Taylor explains that just as we have the ability to create these characteristics that make us superior by the enrichment of civilization and goes to point out that nonhumans have equally as important characteristics that are inconsequential to us, as our characteristics are to them, that have helped their species prosper. Also just asserting that we have more inherent worth is inadequate as well and does this by presenting the ideas of upper and lower classes in classic times were clearly defined however, we now possess the ability to see that these were nothing but distinctions created by humans as well. Finally, and perhaps my favorite argument was that pertaining to religion and how is affects our perceptions. Taylor is able to break down how we our ideas of personal value have been fostered by classical ideas that have come to be taken as more or less objective which are; Greek humanism, Cartesian dualism and the Judeo-Christian concept of the Great Chain of Being. These cultural relativist ideas as result of time and acceptance I feel have become seen as an almost objective idea (extreme realist), until we really start to break down how we have endowed all of these ideas upon ourselves. Whether it ben the idea of man being a rational creature and that being our superiority, or the idea that we possess a soul, or even that god created us in his image and that we are part of a chain of being. Regardless all of the defenses that we can come up with seem to have been fabricated by us to help us understand our position on the Earth. Now that we have the ability to see this and have started to noticeably alter the world around us, we must shed this superiority and acknowledge that we are just one element in the world and that we must respect all other elements that make up our ecological community. I apologize for the long post but I enjoyed this reading and felt that it covered alot of material.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Prompt 08
I think it is a widely accepted notion that humans have a responsibility to protect species from becoming extinct. The more difficult question is why should we preserve these species? There are many reasons people can think of for preserving the lives of endangered species but the conversation boils down to three main arguments. The first being the idea that we should be stewards to protect the these creatures for future generations. As well as the arguments provided by Russow, protecting endangered species while important on the implication it has on our lives hardly holds a candle to preserving energy resources for our posterity and we seem to lack any consideration on that premise. Why then would we take extreme measures to preserve animals that may have no use to us. The other 'Traditional Answer' that while it would seem to be a good idea I doubt that humans would ever act on, and that is preservation on some intrinsic value that the animals possess themselves. As was discussed in the policy and economics lecture, rarely do we act on things that we say we value. Sad as it may be, I do not believe that this intrinsic value that an endangered species has is enough to make humans act on preserving these species. Thus, what must motivate the preservation of species is the idea that they possess some sort of extrinsic value.
Although it is entirely anthopocentric for us to only value an endangered species for our own ends, perhaps given our conditioning as consumers will actually serve some utility when it comes to saving endangered species. Perhaps if we see that a species is being damaged by actions we may interpret this as a direct threat to ourselves. Russow calls upon the anecdote of the Condor and the impact of DDT on the thickness of the Condor eggshells, "...presumably we are being affected in subtle ways by the absorption of DDT, and that is bad for us". I should hope that we are not so vain to think that if a substance we use can have such detrimental effects on other species that it causes no harm to us. Thus, observing the damage of an action caused by humans we can work to combat this in hopes of preserving our species. There is also the matter of the instrumental value of a species that if extinct we will never be able to use for science that can be used to save lives or increase our quality of life. Russow counters this idea by stating that if said organism becomes extinct there are always closely related relatives of the organism that are very similar. While I am not claiming to be an expert in biology by any means if we are to suggest that there are closely related species with similar properties, who is to say that there isn't a specific disease that has an extremely specific cure that can only be derived from one species. While this may be a stretch I do not think that it can be discounted.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Prompt 07
http://phil149.blogspot.com/2012/01/prompt-01.html
I have chosen to review my first post about animal suffering. Although I have reconsidered this post several times I have never considered it under the critical lens of being a consumer. Thinking through the critical lens of being a consumer makes the idea of meat disgusting. What I have realized is that what is paid for is the quality of life of the animal. We make a decision whether we know it or not about the welfare of animals anytime we purchase. When we are in a store we are generally presented with a couple of options but what they essentially boil down to is do we want to buy the cheaper or the more expensive meat. From a consumer standpoint, we observe that (supposedly) we are getting the same amount of nutrition from each, the same weight, however, one is priced far higher. A person who is not thinking about the larger implications of the purchase and more about the implication on their wallet will think of this decision as a no brainer and purchase the cheaper beef. However, this is how decisions operating on purely cost benefit analysis do not yield results that are beneficial to the community as a whole. I think that this coincides nicely with my original idea about how we can go into a supermarket and see 'neatly wrapped packages of meat' and make simple economic decisions. My post reflects my belief that the consumerism has made us think about meat as a commodity rather than an animal and when we think about meat in these terms it is very easy to devaluate the life experience of an animal if its life goal is merely to become a meal on our dinner plate. After these readings I am even less optimistic about the probability of this process changing because society has conditioned us to think in terms of being a consumer, and the agricultural choice that emphasizes fair treatment of animals will never be the cheaper option because of how this process is more expensive. The only way that we can ever make a difference is to consider something different than pure bottom line and perhaps consider a triple bottom line that considers more than just cost into our decisions.
However, one comment from the lecture really jumped out at me. It was Ethan's comment and he talks about the power that a consumer can have. He points out that we can make statements about our values even in a capitalist society by making seemingly simple decisions. I really like this idea because it presents an alternative way to think about our interactions with the environment around us. I realize my idea of going hunting to better understand the process is pragmatic and unrealistic way for us to make decisions about the way we eat meat. However, we can make a decision each day to do something that is ethically responsible such as spend a few extra dollars to make a more responsible purchase. In conclusion I think that the consumer model is the wrong process for the meat industry, however, we are given choices and thus we have the ability to make ethical decisions if we are able to expand our mind and think beyond the archaic philosophy of a single bottom line.
I have chosen to review my first post about animal suffering. Although I have reconsidered this post several times I have never considered it under the critical lens of being a consumer. Thinking through the critical lens of being a consumer makes the idea of meat disgusting. What I have realized is that what is paid for is the quality of life of the animal. We make a decision whether we know it or not about the welfare of animals anytime we purchase. When we are in a store we are generally presented with a couple of options but what they essentially boil down to is do we want to buy the cheaper or the more expensive meat. From a consumer standpoint, we observe that (supposedly) we are getting the same amount of nutrition from each, the same weight, however, one is priced far higher. A person who is not thinking about the larger implications of the purchase and more about the implication on their wallet will think of this decision as a no brainer and purchase the cheaper beef. However, this is how decisions operating on purely cost benefit analysis do not yield results that are beneficial to the community as a whole. I think that this coincides nicely with my original idea about how we can go into a supermarket and see 'neatly wrapped packages of meat' and make simple economic decisions. My post reflects my belief that the consumerism has made us think about meat as a commodity rather than an animal and when we think about meat in these terms it is very easy to devaluate the life experience of an animal if its life goal is merely to become a meal on our dinner plate. After these readings I am even less optimistic about the probability of this process changing because society has conditioned us to think in terms of being a consumer, and the agricultural choice that emphasizes fair treatment of animals will never be the cheaper option because of how this process is more expensive. The only way that we can ever make a difference is to consider something different than pure bottom line and perhaps consider a triple bottom line that considers more than just cost into our decisions.
However, one comment from the lecture really jumped out at me. It was Ethan's comment and he talks about the power that a consumer can have. He points out that we can make statements about our values even in a capitalist society by making seemingly simple decisions. I really like this idea because it presents an alternative way to think about our interactions with the environment around us. I realize my idea of going hunting to better understand the process is pragmatic and unrealistic way for us to make decisions about the way we eat meat. However, we can make a decision each day to do something that is ethically responsible such as spend a few extra dollars to make a more responsible purchase. In conclusion I think that the consumer model is the wrong process for the meat industry, however, we are given choices and thus we have the ability to make ethical decisions if we are able to expand our mind and think beyond the archaic philosophy of a single bottom line.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Prompt 06
(Warren, 93, 5th paragraph (extends on page 93))
This paragraph addresses how equal moral rights can be extended to mentally incompetent people and infants. I find that this paragraph was almost a direct rebuttal to Regan's argument in which he asserts that because we have direct duties to young children and mentally retarded we cannot reject these same rights to animals (Regan, 84, 1st full paragraph). It initially bothered me that Regan could make this assertion but I felt that on some level he was correct. We feel a need to protect people's rights who are not capable of feeling the full range of human emotions but at the same time we reject these same rights to an animal capable of feeling the same (and perhaps more) emotions. However, Warren quickly defends infancy by saying that it is a conditions that we have all experienced or may experience at one time which is correct. We also protect babies because we care for them because of our relationship to them. I think that this same connection is applied to mentally impaired, we protect them because they have emotional connections to people and they cannot protect themselves. I also like the connection in this paragraph drawn about pets and our care for them is not explicitly about them for their own sake but rather because it would hurt us to see an animal that we cared about in pain.
I also felt that the whole argument made by Warren just contains more logic than either of the arguments that we have read prior. I can say this because it answered many of the questions that I had felt before where I had problems with Singer and Regan because they appeared to overlook a lot of biological concerns that I had. One being the line that Regan creates about sentient fully mature mammals. While yes these are pertinent case (and Regan does not assert that these are the only cases), but he asserts that there is a sharp line because he argues that all animals possess equal inherent value. I think that as you evaluate his idea with more and more examples it becomes harder and harder to assert that all of these organisms have the same inherent value. I like then this idea that we should need to sweep all walkways before we walk on them and not swat at mosquitos. By Regan's assertion of benefit of the doubt and of the creatures that we are unsure about their 'subjet-of-a-life' criteria we must assume that they are, and thus they are equal in terms of inherent value to us.
Although I have not read Regan's full book, I can only assume that he would have trouble dealing with a question on this subject because of how vague he makes his argument. I found also that Warren builds a strong case for equality among humans not on some extreme realist idea that this is the way that god wants it to be but rather on the concept that acknowledging moral equality of others is the price that we pay for expecting that others should treat us with the same dignity. Warren's assertion about recognizing equal moral rights on the basis of the ability to 'listen to reason' however, I find to be a gray area. I think that this idea is almost a basis for imperialism because it allows people with an agenda to suspend the rights of others on the concept that they are not able to listen to reason. I present an argument about Native Americans, we were able to exploit them because our perception of the world and ownership was far different, and thus under our own terms of social contracts we were able to take from them and also deny them moral equality because in many cases they were not able to listen to our 'reason'. However, I think at the same time because this idea is broad it does have application the Aristotle example also makes sense in trying to rationalize with creatures who do not possess a language.
However, overall I think that Warren's argument is the belief that best coincides with the fate of other animals as well as humans ability to exist in the world around them by concluding that any creature capable of experiencing suffering should not be inflicted by suffering without just reason and that no sentient being can be killed without good reason. While I can see how these views can be distorted to perform atrocities I also acknowledge that given the complexities of the world we live in, this is perhaps the most ideal situation that we can sensibly achieve.
This paragraph addresses how equal moral rights can be extended to mentally incompetent people and infants. I find that this paragraph was almost a direct rebuttal to Regan's argument in which he asserts that because we have direct duties to young children and mentally retarded we cannot reject these same rights to animals (Regan, 84, 1st full paragraph). It initially bothered me that Regan could make this assertion but I felt that on some level he was correct. We feel a need to protect people's rights who are not capable of feeling the full range of human emotions but at the same time we reject these same rights to an animal capable of feeling the same (and perhaps more) emotions. However, Warren quickly defends infancy by saying that it is a conditions that we have all experienced or may experience at one time which is correct. We also protect babies because we care for them because of our relationship to them. I think that this same connection is applied to mentally impaired, we protect them because they have emotional connections to people and they cannot protect themselves. I also like the connection in this paragraph drawn about pets and our care for them is not explicitly about them for their own sake but rather because it would hurt us to see an animal that we cared about in pain.
I also felt that the whole argument made by Warren just contains more logic than either of the arguments that we have read prior. I can say this because it answered many of the questions that I had felt before where I had problems with Singer and Regan because they appeared to overlook a lot of biological concerns that I had. One being the line that Regan creates about sentient fully mature mammals. While yes these are pertinent case (and Regan does not assert that these are the only cases), but he asserts that there is a sharp line because he argues that all animals possess equal inherent value. I think that as you evaluate his idea with more and more examples it becomes harder and harder to assert that all of these organisms have the same inherent value. I like then this idea that we should need to sweep all walkways before we walk on them and not swat at mosquitos. By Regan's assertion of benefit of the doubt and of the creatures that we are unsure about their 'subjet-of-a-life' criteria we must assume that they are, and thus they are equal in terms of inherent value to us.
Although I have not read Regan's full book, I can only assume that he would have trouble dealing with a question on this subject because of how vague he makes his argument. I found also that Warren builds a strong case for equality among humans not on some extreme realist idea that this is the way that god wants it to be but rather on the concept that acknowledging moral equality of others is the price that we pay for expecting that others should treat us with the same dignity. Warren's assertion about recognizing equal moral rights on the basis of the ability to 'listen to reason' however, I find to be a gray area. I think that this idea is almost a basis for imperialism because it allows people with an agenda to suspend the rights of others on the concept that they are not able to listen to reason. I present an argument about Native Americans, we were able to exploit them because our perception of the world and ownership was far different, and thus under our own terms of social contracts we were able to take from them and also deny them moral equality because in many cases they were not able to listen to our 'reason'. However, I think at the same time because this idea is broad it does have application the Aristotle example also makes sense in trying to rationalize with creatures who do not possess a language.
However, overall I think that Warren's argument is the belief that best coincides with the fate of other animals as well as humans ability to exist in the world around them by concluding that any creature capable of experiencing suffering should not be inflicted by suffering without just reason and that no sentient being can be killed without good reason. While I can see how these views can be distorted to perform atrocities I also acknowledge that given the complexities of the world we live in, this is perhaps the most ideal situation that we can sensibly achieve.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Extra Credit: Review of First Week
This is the first philosophy class that I have learned a lot in this one week. As an engineering student I have always had some resentment about classes like this because of how they do not present science but rather subjective ideas. I was surprised to see however, how interesting and relevant this course has been to my own life. Starting with the correlation between philosophy and ethics. However, I think what has really helped contribute to this learning process has been the philosophizing through the correspondence that we have been required to keep by writing comments. I think that very rarely do we allow other people to critique our philosophies often because we are afraid of people poking holes in our beliefs. I found this has already happened to me on several occasions the first after Prompt 1 (1). I made a comment about eating meat being natural in the world around us. However, Ethan was able to provide some insight that I had never considered comparing meat consumption of animals which is directly related to survival vs a human eating an animal is a choice because other options exist that can sustain our life.
Another item that we learned about was the idea of the moral continuum. This segment caused several rather earth shattering revelations about the idea of my ethics and how they were formed. I believe this is because I possessed the rather egotistical view that the views I had were somehow a universal code. However, upon learning about extreme realism and relativism I was able to better understand that my my morals have been derived from my surroundings which is an already established Idea known as cultural relativism. The next lecture presented even more ideas about my perception of the world. I have realized that for most of my life I have looked at the world solely in terms of humans being the most important species this idea being anthropocentrism. This served as a very appropriate segue into the discussion of animals rights. We read two different readings from Singer and Regan. Both of these ideas presented different ideas about animal liberation but both recognizing that animals have rights. Singer uses the criteria of whether or not an animal should have equal rights as a human by whether or not a creature can experience suffering because this is the limitation of properties that we can use if we consider the least common denominator among humans and thus some animals are capable of feeling this emotion as well. Regan uses a more vague term of 'inherent value' as a metric for which animals should have equal rights. While I have found that my views are still represent speciesism I think that acknowledging other argument is crucial in so that we can help solidify or even establish a view on a subject. The most important shift I think that I have had during the first week of this course is better understanding my own beliefs (not even just limited to the topics in this course) as well as an acknowledgement that my own beliefs are not right and to keep a more open mind when understanding other peoples arguments.
(1) http://phil149.blogspot.com/2012/01/prompt-01.html#comment-form
Another item that we learned about was the idea of the moral continuum. This segment caused several rather earth shattering revelations about the idea of my ethics and how they were formed. I believe this is because I possessed the rather egotistical view that the views I had were somehow a universal code. However, upon learning about extreme realism and relativism I was able to better understand that my my morals have been derived from my surroundings which is an already established Idea known as cultural relativism. The next lecture presented even more ideas about my perception of the world. I have realized that for most of my life I have looked at the world solely in terms of humans being the most important species this idea being anthropocentrism. This served as a very appropriate segue into the discussion of animals rights. We read two different readings from Singer and Regan. Both of these ideas presented different ideas about animal liberation but both recognizing that animals have rights. Singer uses the criteria of whether or not an animal should have equal rights as a human by whether or not a creature can experience suffering because this is the limitation of properties that we can use if we consider the least common denominator among humans and thus some animals are capable of feeling this emotion as well. Regan uses a more vague term of 'inherent value' as a metric for which animals should have equal rights. While I have found that my views are still represent speciesism I think that acknowledging other argument is crucial in so that we can help solidify or even establish a view on a subject. The most important shift I think that I have had during the first week of this course is better understanding my own beliefs (not even just limited to the topics in this course) as well as an acknowledgement that my own beliefs are not right and to keep a more open mind when understanding other peoples arguments.
(1) http://phil149.blogspot.com/2012/01/prompt-01.html#comment-form
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Prompt 05
(Regan, 87, 2nd full paragraph)
This passage from Regan's text suggests the idea that every animal and human has some sort of inherent value. However, this passage goes on to agree with Singer in the idea that all creatures who have any sort of inherent value have the same amount of inherent value and no human has the ability to differentiate this value. This is almost directly relates to Singer's idea that any animal that is capable of experience suffering (Regan's criteria being 'inherent value') has the same rights as any human. I agree strongly with the first line: 'Well, perhaps some will say that animals have some inherent value, only less than we do'. I find myself almost getting a little frustrated that Regan like Singer immediately falls back to this idea that we cannot use reason, or autonomy or intellect as criteria. However, isn't this some sort of gross oversimplification? He merely cites three characteristics and writes off any other possibility of distinguishing. They also both cite this idea about how we cannot use this idea there are humans who are deficient of these abilities. Which I think is a very weak fallback, basing an entire philosophy by sighting a disorder that is rare amongst humans. I would have a little bit more faith in his argument if there was sort of acknowledgement that there are deficient animals as well. What if there were to exist a condition in cows that removed their ability to experience suffering. Would we then no longer have to care about treating cows equally? While I don't have any idea if there is anything that even parallels this slightly but I feel that it is a point that is not recognized. Because we have now must consider cows that can experience suffering, we must develop a more broad definition for animals that have inherent value. While this point may not have been completely relevant the purpose of this statement was to prove that the selections made by Singer and Regan are both arbitrary. I also think that if you want people to take this argument seriously there need to be biological considerations. For me to feel that an animal is equal to myself I would need to know that an animal has the ability to feel more than just suffering and I am not going to denounce years of work that these two authors have done by spouting a few criteria that I have come up with on the spot. I just feel that for these ideas to be accepted a better definition of why we are equal must be determined.
I like some of the ideas proposed as well. For example I like his three goals that he presents at the beginning of the reading. Those ideas including: getting rid of animal testing, getting rid of commercial agriculture and getting rid of hunting for sport. I think that these ideas are slightly are reasonable and at least a first step to establishing animal equality. I realized what I like about these ideas is that they represent better treatment of animals which I think is necessary. However, what is delved upon more deeply suggests that these are not his only goals, he wishes for animals and humans to be considered on the same moral level. His conclusion in the end though I had a slight problem with regarding farming. Regan argues that increasing their living space, providing a more natural environment and more companions is still fundamentally wrong. However, I would argue that caring for animals in these conditions is not wrong. In fact the relationship between a farmer and animal in these conditions is actually a beautiful form of symbiosis in which a cow can provide milk (or chickens eggs, etc.) and the farmer provides the cow with shelter and safe pastures allowing each creature to prosper. I like some of the ideas presented in this text however, I think that if these philosophers want to do anything more than philosophize these ideas of animal liberation they must try to take smaller less aggressive steps than immediately declaring that all animals are equal.
This passage from Regan's text suggests the idea that every animal and human has some sort of inherent value. However, this passage goes on to agree with Singer in the idea that all creatures who have any sort of inherent value have the same amount of inherent value and no human has the ability to differentiate this value. This is almost directly relates to Singer's idea that any animal that is capable of experience suffering (Regan's criteria being 'inherent value') has the same rights as any human. I agree strongly with the first line: 'Well, perhaps some will say that animals have some inherent value, only less than we do'. I find myself almost getting a little frustrated that Regan like Singer immediately falls back to this idea that we cannot use reason, or autonomy or intellect as criteria. However, isn't this some sort of gross oversimplification? He merely cites three characteristics and writes off any other possibility of distinguishing. They also both cite this idea about how we cannot use this idea there are humans who are deficient of these abilities. Which I think is a very weak fallback, basing an entire philosophy by sighting a disorder that is rare amongst humans. I would have a little bit more faith in his argument if there was sort of acknowledgement that there are deficient animals as well. What if there were to exist a condition in cows that removed their ability to experience suffering. Would we then no longer have to care about treating cows equally? While I don't have any idea if there is anything that even parallels this slightly but I feel that it is a point that is not recognized. Because we have now must consider cows that can experience suffering, we must develop a more broad definition for animals that have inherent value. While this point may not have been completely relevant the purpose of this statement was to prove that the selections made by Singer and Regan are both arbitrary. I also think that if you want people to take this argument seriously there need to be biological considerations. For me to feel that an animal is equal to myself I would need to know that an animal has the ability to feel more than just suffering and I am not going to denounce years of work that these two authors have done by spouting a few criteria that I have come up with on the spot. I just feel that for these ideas to be accepted a better definition of why we are equal must be determined.
I like some of the ideas proposed as well. For example I like his three goals that he presents at the beginning of the reading. Those ideas including: getting rid of animal testing, getting rid of commercial agriculture and getting rid of hunting for sport. I think that these ideas are slightly are reasonable and at least a first step to establishing animal equality. I realized what I like about these ideas is that they represent better treatment of animals which I think is necessary. However, what is delved upon more deeply suggests that these are not his only goals, he wishes for animals and humans to be considered on the same moral level. His conclusion in the end though I had a slight problem with regarding farming. Regan argues that increasing their living space, providing a more natural environment and more companions is still fundamentally wrong. However, I would argue that caring for animals in these conditions is not wrong. In fact the relationship between a farmer and animal in these conditions is actually a beautiful form of symbiosis in which a cow can provide milk (or chickens eggs, etc.) and the farmer provides the cow with shelter and safe pastures allowing each creature to prosper. I like some of the ideas presented in this text however, I think that if these philosophers want to do anything more than philosophize these ideas of animal liberation they must try to take smaller less aggressive steps than immediately declaring that all animals are equal.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Prompt 04
(Singer, 78, 1st Paragraph)
I think that this entire reading was extremely interesting. I have never really put any deep consideration into the rights of animals. I really found interesting some of the arguments such as using intelligence as a boundary for determining equality. For this reason I almost used (Singer, 75, 2nd Paragraph) because I had one of those enlightening moments reading it and and having it cause some sort of distress in my mind because of how it has shaken some of my preconceived notions. However, as I read on I was really grabbed by the entry that I wrote. I was somewhat intrigued by how our rationalization for human dignity has changed but at the core there is still this idea that every individual has some form of intrinsic worth. Extending each person some set of unalienable rights is essential to have a just peaceful humanity. However, I think what this passage fails to recognize is that we do condemn humans who break the moral laws that we have established. In an ideal world no human would be above these rights, and when any human violates these rights they are subject to punishment. We subject them to some form of suffering that has been agreed upon (however, the governor of Mississippi may disagree with me here). So I now would like to consider the last line of the paragraph of this text:
'It is only when we think of humans as nor more than a small subgroup of all the beings that inhabit our planet that we may realize that in elevating our own species we are at the same time lowering the relative status of all other species.'
I agree whole heartedly that this is certainly the case in our society. We as a society have been able to rationalize ourselves as a superior species and been able to use this as perhaps a rationalization for anytime that we feel the need to exploit animals for their instrumental value. I ask now though should we consider all animals to act under the same rigid guidelines how would the world work? If we were to hold on a similar ground all animals capable of suffering. Well I can tell you it would be a chaotic world, because animals are violent. The only reason that domesticated dogs and cats and in the manner that they do is because as humans we have been able to make them into docile creatures by providing them with food rather than forcing them to acquire it themselves. Now if we were to create a universal set of laws that would condemn any animal for taking the life of any other animal that can experience suffering. We would be punishing every animal that is a carnivore and what do we do at this point? Detain these animals as we would a human and put them into the same conditions that Singer is condemning humans for in the first place. Which makes me consider perhaps that there is this idea that Pico suggests of a 'Great Chain of Being'. The idea of animal liberation I think then becomes somewhat of a complex issue. Perhaps the reason that we lower the relative status of other animals because in some degree they do have a lower level of consciousness. This is not to say that I think that some animals are treated inappropriately because as we have elaborated on heavily already with the issue of causing animals pain by eating them. However, we live in a world where humans are committing atrocities against other humans daily if we truly care about liberation of animals should we not seek to end injustices amongst our own? I also urge us to examine the time frame in which this piece was written, we had just gotten out of War in Vietnam, we were still involved in a Cold War with the Soviet Union, and there was even a genocide existing in Cambodia. Given the climate at this current time I would argue that Singer writing this paper could be received as trivial, arguing for the rights of animals when it would seem as a country that we have unresolved issues granting rights to our own people (i.e. the draft for Vietnam War). I realize that the end of this may have gone slightly off topic but it I think it is important to acknowledge what current events are happening at anytime that choose to evaluate any piece of classic literature
I think that this entire reading was extremely interesting. I have never really put any deep consideration into the rights of animals. I really found interesting some of the arguments such as using intelligence as a boundary for determining equality. For this reason I almost used (Singer, 75, 2nd Paragraph) because I had one of those enlightening moments reading it and and having it cause some sort of distress in my mind because of how it has shaken some of my preconceived notions. However, as I read on I was really grabbed by the entry that I wrote. I was somewhat intrigued by how our rationalization for human dignity has changed but at the core there is still this idea that every individual has some form of intrinsic worth. Extending each person some set of unalienable rights is essential to have a just peaceful humanity. However, I think what this passage fails to recognize is that we do condemn humans who break the moral laws that we have established. In an ideal world no human would be above these rights, and when any human violates these rights they are subject to punishment. We subject them to some form of suffering that has been agreed upon (however, the governor of Mississippi may disagree with me here). So I now would like to consider the last line of the paragraph of this text:
'It is only when we think of humans as nor more than a small subgroup of all the beings that inhabit our planet that we may realize that in elevating our own species we are at the same time lowering the relative status of all other species.'
I agree whole heartedly that this is certainly the case in our society. We as a society have been able to rationalize ourselves as a superior species and been able to use this as perhaps a rationalization for anytime that we feel the need to exploit animals for their instrumental value. I ask now though should we consider all animals to act under the same rigid guidelines how would the world work? If we were to hold on a similar ground all animals capable of suffering. Well I can tell you it would be a chaotic world, because animals are violent. The only reason that domesticated dogs and cats and in the manner that they do is because as humans we have been able to make them into docile creatures by providing them with food rather than forcing them to acquire it themselves. Now if we were to create a universal set of laws that would condemn any animal for taking the life of any other animal that can experience suffering. We would be punishing every animal that is a carnivore and what do we do at this point? Detain these animals as we would a human and put them into the same conditions that Singer is condemning humans for in the first place. Which makes me consider perhaps that there is this idea that Pico suggests of a 'Great Chain of Being'. The idea of animal liberation I think then becomes somewhat of a complex issue. Perhaps the reason that we lower the relative status of other animals because in some degree they do have a lower level of consciousness. This is not to say that I think that some animals are treated inappropriately because as we have elaborated on heavily already with the issue of causing animals pain by eating them. However, we live in a world where humans are committing atrocities against other humans daily if we truly care about liberation of animals should we not seek to end injustices amongst our own? I also urge us to examine the time frame in which this piece was written, we had just gotten out of War in Vietnam, we were still involved in a Cold War with the Soviet Union, and there was even a genocide existing in Cambodia. Given the climate at this current time I would argue that Singer writing this paper could be received as trivial, arguing for the rights of animals when it would seem as a country that we have unresolved issues granting rights to our own people (i.e. the draft for Vietnam War). I realize that the end of this may have gone slightly off topic but it I think it is important to acknowledge what current events are happening at anytime that choose to evaluate any piece of classic literature
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Prompt 03
For this prompt I have chosen Asa's Post
I chose to write about Asa's post because it was one of the few that I read that dealt with the issue of preserving the forests. What intrigued me but also made me shy away from this statement initially was the aspect about for human enjoyment. I am not realizing that this post was phrased this way perhaps so that after this lecture we could go back and identify that this view was anthropocentric in terms of the relation with the environment.
After reading through this post several times I have determined that the moral standard used by Asa was whether or not preserving the forests will have a positive effect on humanity. This reflects an anthropocentric because it reflects the importance of the preserving the forests for their instrumental value. I am a little hazy on defining exactly what the moral units are but the two that I was able to come up with were humans ability to use nature for leisure and humans ability to use resources from the forests to perpetuate our survival. I think that from his moral standard both of these uses of nature are morally justified. Asa's beliefs reflect heavily the instrumental value of the forests and why they should be preserved. This belief probably stems from his upbringing and values about the forest that were presented to him while he was young and clearly through his development because of the reference of using resources from forest ecosystems as cures. I think that there is nothing wrong with his belief and I think it is a belief that is shared by many. One issue that was not really touched on was the intrinsic value of the forests themselves. I tend to subscribe to the idea of value objectivity meaning the forests themselves have their own value apart from what value we place upon them. It took a good bit of thinking for me to decide why I felt like this, because I realized that my initial perception of value stemmed solely from my fear that perpetual damage to the world around will eventually be perilous for the human race which comes back to the anthropocentric view.
However, upon further thinking I tried to think about the value of forests in other terms that instrumental value for humans. I thought of value such as beauty but determined that this is probably something that is only appreciated by humans so I kept thinking. What changed my train of thought was thinking about the relation that trees have in nature. Trees hold quit a bit of responsibility in nature, while they may not think, have grounded goals or feel pain they serve an integral part of an ecosystem. They take carbon dioxide and convert it to oxygen which makes earth inhabitable. There roots help to preserve the landscape by preventing erosion. They have the ability to convert inorganic matter into organic matter by using the suns energy. Their components also break down into rich organic soil that can then serve as a location for new life to prosper. However, even beyond these measurable quantities the passage in the text regarding location of intrinsic value leads me to believe that there is even deeper values such as richness and diversity that humans have no metric for but are perhaps integral in the natural world. This idea has made me realize that our limited perception of the world around us is what makes exploitation of these resources so easy.
I chose to write about Asa's post because it was one of the few that I read that dealt with the issue of preserving the forests. What intrigued me but also made me shy away from this statement initially was the aspect about for human enjoyment. I am not realizing that this post was phrased this way perhaps so that after this lecture we could go back and identify that this view was anthropocentric in terms of the relation with the environment.
After reading through this post several times I have determined that the moral standard used by Asa was whether or not preserving the forests will have a positive effect on humanity. This reflects an anthropocentric because it reflects the importance of the preserving the forests for their instrumental value. I am a little hazy on defining exactly what the moral units are but the two that I was able to come up with were humans ability to use nature for leisure and humans ability to use resources from the forests to perpetuate our survival. I think that from his moral standard both of these uses of nature are morally justified. Asa's beliefs reflect heavily the instrumental value of the forests and why they should be preserved. This belief probably stems from his upbringing and values about the forest that were presented to him while he was young and clearly through his development because of the reference of using resources from forest ecosystems as cures. I think that there is nothing wrong with his belief and I think it is a belief that is shared by many. One issue that was not really touched on was the intrinsic value of the forests themselves. I tend to subscribe to the idea of value objectivity meaning the forests themselves have their own value apart from what value we place upon them. It took a good bit of thinking for me to decide why I felt like this, because I realized that my initial perception of value stemmed solely from my fear that perpetual damage to the world around will eventually be perilous for the human race which comes back to the anthropocentric view.
However, upon further thinking I tried to think about the value of forests in other terms that instrumental value for humans. I thought of value such as beauty but determined that this is probably something that is only appreciated by humans so I kept thinking. What changed my train of thought was thinking about the relation that trees have in nature. Trees hold quit a bit of responsibility in nature, while they may not think, have grounded goals or feel pain they serve an integral part of an ecosystem. They take carbon dioxide and convert it to oxygen which makes earth inhabitable. There roots help to preserve the landscape by preventing erosion. They have the ability to convert inorganic matter into organic matter by using the suns energy. Their components also break down into rich organic soil that can then serve as a location for new life to prosper. However, even beyond these measurable quantities the passage in the text regarding location of intrinsic value leads me to believe that there is even deeper values such as richness and diversity that humans have no metric for but are perhaps integral in the natural world. This idea has made me realize that our limited perception of the world around us is what makes exploitation of these resources so easy.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Prompt 02
I found todays lecture to be very interesting and made me have several realizations while I was reading. I have never thought about morality in terms or realism and relativism however, after reading this I struggle to determine where I stand on the matter. I think it is probably through good upbringing that the I take morals to be given by some higher power. But through introspection I have been able to realize that the morals that I hold true are ideas that were held by people before me and because of their success they have been passed down. I think that this hold's truest with cultural relativism, which suggests that all morals are is a set of commonly agreed upon ideas for what is right and wrong. One of the questions on the quiz made me think very critically asking if we thought that god or some other higher power determines the code that we live by. The rational part of myself is very quick to dismiss this idea, how can our morals be determined from a higher power if there has never actual been a scientifically confirmed connection with a god.
However, there is also a part of me that believes that some morality is born into us and is almost primal in nature. I present the idea of a mother taking care of her young, for humans we consider the idea of a mother taking care of her baby. I like this example because it is not an idea that is not limited to humans, i.e. bears, deer, etc. This idea suggests that there is some sort of deeper bond between mother and child. And I think that this idea of morality within a family is what gave me some trouble answering questions on the quiz.
The question on the quiz about the boy and the mother posed and interesting question for me. Which is what precedent is supreme here. On one hand we have the notion of a last wish which the agrees to then blatantly disregards once the mother has passed. The good part of me wants to believe that he is a good son and would want to make his mother happy. However, the accompanying task of having to visit his mother every week may be tough and maybe slightly unreasonable and if he made the promise to give his mother some comfort before her passing then I see the merit there too. I think that this touches a gray area of ethics that is should we be truthful and hurtful or lie to let her ease her mind.
I was also interested by question about the cat. My initial reaction is repulsion, I am the owner of a cat, and I would never eat my cat under my own free will even if it had died. However, it took me a brief second to consider that all this person has done is eat an animal that is already dead. What they have done is eat a dead animal, something that I do daily.
However, there is also a part of me that believes that some morality is born into us and is almost primal in nature. I present the idea of a mother taking care of her young, for humans we consider the idea of a mother taking care of her baby. I like this example because it is not an idea that is not limited to humans, i.e. bears, deer, etc. This idea suggests that there is some sort of deeper bond between mother and child. And I think that this idea of morality within a family is what gave me some trouble answering questions on the quiz.
The question on the quiz about the boy and the mother posed and interesting question for me. Which is what precedent is supreme here. On one hand we have the notion of a last wish which the agrees to then blatantly disregards once the mother has passed. The good part of me wants to believe that he is a good son and would want to make his mother happy. However, the accompanying task of having to visit his mother every week may be tough and maybe slightly unreasonable and if he made the promise to give his mother some comfort before her passing then I see the merit there too. I think that this touches a gray area of ethics that is should we be truthful and hurtful or lie to let her ease her mind.
I was also interested by question about the cat. My initial reaction is repulsion, I am the owner of a cat, and I would never eat my cat under my own free will even if it had died. However, it took me a brief second to consider that all this person has done is eat an animal that is already dead. What they have done is eat a dead animal, something that I do daily.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Prompt 01
My name is Spencer Branch and I am a senior majoring in mechanical engineering. I have always been interested in the environment and sustainable development. I have tried to take all of my technical electives and general education requirements in classes relating to renewable energy and the environment. Thus, when I saw the opportunity to take a humanities class in a field that I was passionate about I seized it. I was especially excited when I saw the topics for the first prompt. I was instantly drawn to the issues about protecting the environment but as I mulled it over, I decided to pick an issue that I have grappled with recently which is about my consumption of meat.
I have always thoroughly enjoyed most meat. However, there are many reasons which have caused me to think twice about my meat consumption. As I have learned about the impact that meat demand has had on the landscape of the world and the subsequent damage, I have made a conscious effort to eat less meat, beef especially. However, my love to both cook and eat meat has made it difficult for me give it up entirely. More recently I have thought about the philosophy of meat consumption. Up until a recent conversation I have with my brother I believed (and I think many share this belief), that we eat roughly the same amount of meat as previous generations he shook my perception by informing me that meat consumption has increased. In fact from 1961 to 2002 (1) meat consumption in the US increased by nearly 40 percent. It forced me to think about eating meat more critically. I realized that what made meat so appealing to me was that I saw it as nothing but a food. The only form that we really see of meat is small neatly wrapped packages. I have gained the ability to put a complete separation in my mind between cows and beef. I think we do this in part because if we spent time dwelling on something like this we would have much more trouble eating meat. I think that this thought was a good progress in determining what specifically makes eating meat an ethical issue for me. However, eating meat cannot be bad because it is natural. Animals eating other animals is what happens naturally and what allows ecosystems to function. I think this is what allows me to rationalize the pain that an animal experiences for my own health, because it is the way of the natural world. I realized that the issue I had with meat consumption laid in the manner that we have come to eat meat.
What separates the way we eat meat from other animals is our complete removal from the process of slaughtering the animal. That is, in nature, when a predator is hungry it must chase down the prey kill and eat the animal. The carcass of the animal then serves as a meal for several other animals and very little goes to waste. This school of thought has made me want to hunt. So that I can make the connection between animal and food, and experience the transition from animal to nourishment. I think that this experience would allow me to resolve some of my ethical issues with meat consumption and would definitely help me to reduce my meat intake having a better understanding of ending another animals life for my own.
(1) http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/index.php?theme=8&variable_ID=193&action=select_countries
I have always thoroughly enjoyed most meat. However, there are many reasons which have caused me to think twice about my meat consumption. As I have learned about the impact that meat demand has had on the landscape of the world and the subsequent damage, I have made a conscious effort to eat less meat, beef especially. However, my love to both cook and eat meat has made it difficult for me give it up entirely. More recently I have thought about the philosophy of meat consumption. Up until a recent conversation I have with my brother I believed (and I think many share this belief), that we eat roughly the same amount of meat as previous generations he shook my perception by informing me that meat consumption has increased. In fact from 1961 to 2002 (1) meat consumption in the US increased by nearly 40 percent. It forced me to think about eating meat more critically. I realized that what made meat so appealing to me was that I saw it as nothing but a food. The only form that we really see of meat is small neatly wrapped packages. I have gained the ability to put a complete separation in my mind between cows and beef. I think we do this in part because if we spent time dwelling on something like this we would have much more trouble eating meat. I think that this thought was a good progress in determining what specifically makes eating meat an ethical issue for me. However, eating meat cannot be bad because it is natural. Animals eating other animals is what happens naturally and what allows ecosystems to function. I think this is what allows me to rationalize the pain that an animal experiences for my own health, because it is the way of the natural world. I realized that the issue I had with meat consumption laid in the manner that we have come to eat meat.
What separates the way we eat meat from other animals is our complete removal from the process of slaughtering the animal. That is, in nature, when a predator is hungry it must chase down the prey kill and eat the animal. The carcass of the animal then serves as a meal for several other animals and very little goes to waste. This school of thought has made me want to hunt. So that I can make the connection between animal and food, and experience the transition from animal to nourishment. I think that this experience would allow me to resolve some of my ethical issues with meat consumption and would definitely help me to reduce my meat intake having a better understanding of ending another animals life for my own.
(1) http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/index.php?theme=8&variable_ID=193&action=select_countries
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)