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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)