It's been a long semester in some respects, but it has perhaps been my most worthwhile during my four years at the College. I wont say there weren't some lowpoints, but I have a positive outlook about my experience both in this class and at MCLA in general.
I'll be sad to leave this place, but I'm keeping my Animal Ethics Reader and Silliman's book, and likely this blog, as well, since it helps me sort out my thoughts, and I've always been interested in animal welfare.
The last class period, when we presented our book reviews, was surprisingly lengthy, despite the fact that we each had only a page to summarize. I was happy about that, if not for the lack of attendance. Did all those people really withdraw?? Wow. I think they should have stuck with the class because we ended up learning a lot. I'm glad I took this course, and I'll take away a lot from it when I graduate on the 12th.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Friday, April 27, 2007
Rights
I read an article today from Animal Experimentation: The Moral Issues and it bothered me.
In the section of the book on Supporting Animal Experimentation, one article's entire basis for believing vivisection to be justified hinges on semantics.
In Carl Cohen's "For the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research", the writer spends a great deal of time arguing that the animal rights view is wrong because animals, being nonhuman, do not have rights simply because rights are something that only humans have. He also says that while humans have an obligation to treat nonhuman animals decently, the nonhuman animals themselves do not even have a "right to life" on their own part. If this is the typical supportive stance for animal experimentation, it makes me wonder why it still exists in the first place. Semantics are not a strong enough argument for me, and I hope, not for many others, either.
In the section of the book on Supporting Animal Experimentation, one article's entire basis for believing vivisection to be justified hinges on semantics.
In Carl Cohen's "For the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research", the writer spends a great deal of time arguing that the animal rights view is wrong because animals, being nonhuman, do not have rights simply because rights are something that only humans have. He also says that while humans have an obligation to treat nonhuman animals decently, the nonhuman animals themselves do not even have a "right to life" on their own part. If this is the typical supportive stance for animal experimentation, it makes me wonder why it still exists in the first place. Semantics are not a strong enough argument for me, and I hope, not for many others, either.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Hunting
Hunting..I've never cared for the idea, and don't think that just because we are "predatory omnivores" that it is our right as human beings to shoot and maim wild animals for the sake of sportsmanship. It's one thing if the hunting is for food purposes, but quite another when the whole point of it is for entertainment's sake and collecting trophies (and who the heck was the first person to think that mounting heads on walls was classy?).
Obviously Canned hunting is worse than the more traditional methods, but I've already ranted about that in an earlier post, so I wont get into it again. I will say that having seen clips of how hunters often use their dogs to help them kill is disturbing. It's no wonder there are accidental attacks from domesticated dogs, if the animals themselves are being taught contradictions. "It's okay to kill this, Fido, but not that. You can be as brutal as you want to this kind of thing, but if you even act aggressive towards that one, I'm afraid we'll have to put you down like a savage beast." What kind of logic is that???
Obviously Canned hunting is worse than the more traditional methods, but I've already ranted about that in an earlier post, so I wont get into it again. I will say that having seen clips of how hunters often use their dogs to help them kill is disturbing. It's no wonder there are accidental attacks from domesticated dogs, if the animals themselves are being taught contradictions. "It's okay to kill this, Fido, but not that. You can be as brutal as you want to this kind of thing, but if you even act aggressive towards that one, I'm afraid we'll have to put you down like a savage beast." What kind of logic is that???
Monday, April 23, 2007
Children of Men
In another class, I'm studying the novel "Children of Men" by PD James, and it tells the story of the end of humanity, ultimately, due to infertility, and the way that humanity envies the "lesser" species of animal for their continued abilities to reproduce.
It addresses hopelessness (of which even now our modern society feels a great deal of, for a variety of reasons) and even more prominently, hostility and prejudice against other groups.
The film version (starring Clive Owen and Julianne Moore, 2006) accurately visualizes some of the scenes in the novel where entire minority groups are treated almost like nonhuman animals are, today in some cases. They are rounded up, deprived of even human status and the belief in their basic intelligence.
This of course brings to mind the concentration camps of the Nazi era. The story is set in England, and any person that is not a native of the country has been dehumanized to the point where any sign of protest on their part for their treatment may very well result in cold-blooded execution because when deprived of human status, they are no better than wild animals, and given less importance even than cows because these immigrants and refugees are not even useful to the rest of humanity either in life or death.
Terrorism is on the rise, with militant groups springing up from even the most unlikely places. Officially, the last child born was, as of the start of the novel, 25 years before, and now that "youngest person alive" has now been killed in a pointless bar brawl.
The main focus of the story revolves around a philosophy professor, actually (at least in the book) who is, partly by chance drawn into a scenerio where he alone is responsible for protecting and getting to safety an inexplicably pregnant African woman. The fear is that the child will be killed for the spiteful sake of proving that only white humans are human at all, and having any children be born to the dehumanized section of the species would be an unacceptable truth.
"Children of Men" is a hard novel to read, with its ugly view of racism
and paranoia. I bring it up in my phlog solely for its parallels with the class discussions on how nonhuman animals are often reduced to merely their value in regards to how we can use them, and if they have no use for us, they cease having value at all, like the non-caucasians in the novel.
The scariest part is, this sort of scenerio is not entirely out of the realm of eventual possibility, for whatever biological reason.
It addresses hopelessness (of which even now our modern society feels a great deal of, for a variety of reasons) and even more prominently, hostility and prejudice against other groups.
The film version (starring Clive Owen and Julianne Moore, 2006) accurately visualizes some of the scenes in the novel where entire minority groups are treated almost like nonhuman animals are, today in some cases. They are rounded up, deprived of even human status and the belief in their basic intelligence.
This of course brings to mind the concentration camps of the Nazi era. The story is set in England, and any person that is not a native of the country has been dehumanized to the point where any sign of protest on their part for their treatment may very well result in cold-blooded execution because when deprived of human status, they are no better than wild animals, and given less importance even than cows because these immigrants and refugees are not even useful to the rest of humanity either in life or death.
Terrorism is on the rise, with militant groups springing up from even the most unlikely places. Officially, the last child born was, as of the start of the novel, 25 years before, and now that "youngest person alive" has now been killed in a pointless bar brawl.
The main focus of the story revolves around a philosophy professor, actually (at least in the book) who is, partly by chance drawn into a scenerio where he alone is responsible for protecting and getting to safety an inexplicably pregnant African woman. The fear is that the child will be killed for the spiteful sake of proving that only white humans are human at all, and having any children be born to the dehumanized section of the species would be an unacceptable truth.
"Children of Men" is a hard novel to read, with its ugly view of racism
and paranoia. I bring it up in my phlog solely for its parallels with the class discussions on how nonhuman animals are often reduced to merely their value in regards to how we can use them, and if they have no use for us, they cease having value at all, like the non-caucasians in the novel.
The scariest part is, this sort of scenerio is not entirely out of the realm of eventual possibility, for whatever biological reason.
Silliman & Sudan
Today, a great albeit limited class discussion of "Sentience & Sensibility" took place. I was very surprised by the sheer lack of attendance, considering how interesting it turned out to be. Based on the discussion, I will definitely read the remaining chapters of the book to catch up on what was hinted at by Silliman, but not covered in the class readings.
My own question, on the genocide in Sudan was given a good deal of class time to discuss. I asked whether or not deliberate and willful ignorance was responsible for the almost entire lack of humanitarian and commercial media attention for the crisis was one of the main reasons for the genocide and the overall refusal to take moral obligation for the problem and make steps to correct it.
The answer was, while not optimistic, sensible. It's too late, and while it's not preferrable by anyone, military force may be the only recourse left to us. The real question is how we as a world power, and the United Nations (along with the rest of the world) let the situation in Darfur to get to this critical mass. His examples about the Kosovo incident were especially interesting because from personal experience I've met refugees from that situation (my aunt took an entire family of them into one of her larger estates and set them up in one of the rental buildings for free for almost 6 months). It just brings home the fact that the only time things like this make the news is when it's far too late for a peaceful resolution. War makes headlines, not peace.
I'd have to agree with Silliman's suggestion to simply ignore and turn off commercial media. They're only connection to the news happens after it's already too late to fix the conflict.
My own question, on the genocide in Sudan was given a good deal of class time to discuss. I asked whether or not deliberate and willful ignorance was responsible for the almost entire lack of humanitarian and commercial media attention for the crisis was one of the main reasons for the genocide and the overall refusal to take moral obligation for the problem and make steps to correct it.
The answer was, while not optimistic, sensible. It's too late, and while it's not preferrable by anyone, military force may be the only recourse left to us. The real question is how we as a world power, and the United Nations (along with the rest of the world) let the situation in Darfur to get to this critical mass. His examples about the Kosovo incident were especially interesting because from personal experience I've met refugees from that situation (my aunt took an entire family of them into one of her larger estates and set them up in one of the rental buildings for free for almost 6 months). It just brings home the fact that the only time things like this make the news is when it's far too late for a peaceful resolution. War makes headlines, not peace.
I'd have to agree with Silliman's suggestion to simply ignore and turn off commercial media. They're only connection to the news happens after it's already too late to fix the conflict.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Book review choice
I decided to settle on the topic of Animal Experimentation for my final book review for the class. I nearly went with animal abuse, or hunting, but I figured that the moral issues surrouning both of those seem less in question than animal experimentation.
Both laypeople and scientists are of divided mind about vivisection, and reading a book devoted to the moral issues related to it seemed like a smart move on my part. I found a book at Freel Library on it, and I'm looking forwards to sinking my teeth into it.
Both laypeople and scientists are of divided mind about vivisection, and reading a book devoted to the moral issues related to it seemed like a smart move on my part. I found a book at Freel Library on it, and I'm looking forwards to sinking my teeth into it.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
We didn't start the fire.
With the events on Patriot's day in Virginia fresh in our minds, it seems to be an appropriate time to address the disturbing habit of humanity for conflict. Having just recently seen Billy Joel perform his hit song "We didn't start the fire" live (last night, actually), this idea is further entrenched in my mind at present.
I can think of no other animal that has this propensity for conflict. We cause mass extinctions, habitat destruction, and mass-murder of nonhuman animals, and we do the same to other humans, as well. The Darfur conflict, the Holocaust, and the Crusades are but some examples, not to mention school shootings like this latest Virginia Tech incident, or that infamous day in 2001, September 11.
What is it about humanity that makes this senseless tendency towards extreme violence so common? Is it biology? I doubt it. We differ only by a chromosome or two from many other nonhuman species, but it is not nearly so common to find murder in the animal kingdom aside from humans.
Granted, nonhuman animals fight occasionally. For breeding rights, and for territory, but even Grizzly bears rarely kill eachother, even in combat. The weaker opponent will back off, not being prevented, by pride, from admitting defeat.
My guess is that it's our culture. The dog-eat-dog competitive spirit that infuses American society, for instance, is no doubt responsible for many social conflicts, including the prevailing distaste for homeless and poor people by the bulk of American society.
I can think of no other animal that has this propensity for conflict. We cause mass extinctions, habitat destruction, and mass-murder of nonhuman animals, and we do the same to other humans, as well. The Darfur conflict, the Holocaust, and the Crusades are but some examples, not to mention school shootings like this latest Virginia Tech incident, or that infamous day in 2001, September 11.
What is it about humanity that makes this senseless tendency towards extreme violence so common? Is it biology? I doubt it. We differ only by a chromosome or two from many other nonhuman species, but it is not nearly so common to find murder in the animal kingdom aside from humans.
Granted, nonhuman animals fight occasionally. For breeding rights, and for territory, but even Grizzly bears rarely kill eachother, even in combat. The weaker opponent will back off, not being prevented, by pride, from admitting defeat.
My guess is that it's our culture. The dog-eat-dog competitive spirit that infuses American society, for instance, is no doubt responsible for many social conflicts, including the prevailing distaste for homeless and poor people by the bulk of American society.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Animal Planet
I'll not deny that I love the Animal Planet channel. Some of the programs are silly, true enough, but it's always nice to see people actually making some effort to conserve wildlife and protect endangered species, as well as domesticated ones.
Some programs, like "Meerkat Manor" got me thinking. Wildlife seems most popular only when it is humanized. The meer kats are famous only for the fact, it seems, that they have names and Sean Astin is narrating what seems to be their motivations and thoughts. It's likely the same reason why the first documentary explained why pet product sales are booming, with little outfits now designed for canine pals.
Must our species always humanize nonhuman animals in order to care about their plight?
Some programs, like "Meerkat Manor" got me thinking. Wildlife seems most popular only when it is humanized. The meer kats are famous only for the fact, it seems, that they have names and Sean Astin is narrating what seems to be their motivations and thoughts. It's likely the same reason why the first documentary explained why pet product sales are booming, with little outfits now designed for canine pals.
Must our species always humanize nonhuman animals in order to care about their plight?
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Second Film- Animal Awareness
Despite the fact that some people believe that animals are not aware of the world around them, or other creatures that exist alongside them, there are plenty of instances where animals have come through for humans without needing to be trained to do it.
The gorrilla at the beginning of the film we saw last class is one example. Instead of ignoring the hurt child, or attacking, the silver-back kept the others of his family unit away from the boy, and touched him gently.
There have been similar instances at zoos were primates have actually cradled injured children that have fallen into their enclosures. Dogs have rescued people, cats I'm sure have done the same in their own way, if only by alerting owners to danger.
Are these not instances of animal awareness beyond simple stimuli (fear, pain, hunger)? The film raised plenty of questions, but I never got the sense that any of them were answered.
The gorrilla at the beginning of the film we saw last class is one example. Instead of ignoring the hurt child, or attacking, the silver-back kept the others of his family unit away from the boy, and touched him gently.
There have been similar instances at zoos were primates have actually cradled injured children that have fallen into their enclosures. Dogs have rescued people, cats I'm sure have done the same in their own way, if only by alerting owners to danger.
Are these not instances of animal awareness beyond simple stimuli (fear, pain, hunger)? The film raised plenty of questions, but I never got the sense that any of them were answered.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Dr. Greek's Suggested Reading
I'm not positive what I'll read for my report on a book for A&E class, but I've got a list that I obtained from the NAVS site that I may look into. I've provided it for use by other students in the class, too, if they are still looking around for something.
They are organized by theme.
********************
Anti-Vivisection
Greek, C. Ray, and Jean Swingle Greek. Sacred Cows and Golden Geese. New York:
Continuum, 2000.
Greek, C. Ray, and Jean Swingle Greek. Specious Science. New York: Continuum, 2002.
Greek, Jean Swingle, and C. Ray Greek. What Will We Do If We Don’t Experiment On
Animals? Victoria: Trafford, 2004.
LaFollette, Hugh, and Niall Shanks. Brute Science: Dilemmas of Animals Experimentation
(Philosophical Issues in Science). London: Routledge, 1996.
Vyvyan, John. The Dark Face of Science. Joseph, 1971.
Vyvyan, John. In Pity and In Anger: A Study of the Use of Animals in Science. Transatlantic
Arts, 1972.
Rupke, N.A. (ed.) Vivisection in Historical Perspective. London: Routledge, 1990.
Logic and Critical Thought
Schick, T.S., and Lewis Vaughn. How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a
New Age. New York: McGraw-Hill 3rd edition, 2002.
Walton, Douglas. Informal Logic. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Brenner, William H. Logic and Philosophy. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press,
1993.
Science
Curd, Martin, and J.A. Cover. Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues. New York: W.W
Norton Publishing, 1998.
Midgley, Mary. Science As Salvation: A Modern Myth and It’s Meaning. London:
Routledge, 1994.
Midgley, Mary. Evolution As A Religion. London: Methuen, 1985.
*Gross, Paul R., and Norman Levitt. Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its
Quarrels With Science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.
*Gross, Paul R., Norman Levitt, and Martin W. Lewis. The Flight From Science And
Reason. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1997.
*"While I strongly disagree with the authors’ opinions on the use of animals in biomedical research and on
their premise of why the animal rights movement exists, the books are never the less well worth reading for
what the authors have to say about how science is viewed in our time," Dr. Greek.
Valiela, Ivan. Doing Science. London: Oxford University Press. 2001.
Animal Rights/Protection
Griffin, Donald. Animal Minds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. University of
Chicago Press 1992.
Regan, Tom. The Case For Animal Rights. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983.
Regan, Tom. Empty Cages: Facing the Challenge of Animal Rights. Lanham, MD: Rowman
& Littlefield Publishers, 2004.
Midgley, Mary. Animals and Why They Matter. Athens: University of Georgia Press;
Reissue edition, 1998.
Regan, Tom, and Peter Singer, eds. Animal Rights and Human Obligations (2nd Edition).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1989.
Dombroski, Daniel. Babies and Beasts: The Argument from Marginal Cases. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press, 1997.
The Legal Case for Animal Research
Wise, Steven. Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights for Animals. Cambridge: Perseus
Books, 2001.
Wise, Steven M. Drawing the Line: Science and the Case for Animal Rights. Cambridge:
Perseus Books, 2003.
Religion and Animal Research
Scully, Mathew. Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to
Mercy. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2003.
McDaniel, Jay B. Of God and Pelicans: A Theology of Reverence for Life. Westminster:
John Knox Press, 1st ed edition, 1989.
Webb, Stephen H. On God and Dogs: A Christian Theology of Compassion for Animals.
London: Oxford University Press, New Edition, 2001.
They are organized by theme.
********************
Anti-Vivisection
Greek, C. Ray, and Jean Swingle Greek. Sacred Cows and Golden Geese. New York:
Continuum, 2000.
Greek, C. Ray, and Jean Swingle Greek. Specious Science. New York: Continuum, 2002.
Greek, Jean Swingle, and C. Ray Greek. What Will We Do If We Don’t Experiment On
Animals? Victoria: Trafford, 2004.
LaFollette, Hugh, and Niall Shanks. Brute Science: Dilemmas of Animals Experimentation
(Philosophical Issues in Science). London: Routledge, 1996.
Vyvyan, John. The Dark Face of Science. Joseph, 1971.
Vyvyan, John. In Pity and In Anger: A Study of the Use of Animals in Science. Transatlantic
Arts, 1972.
Rupke, N.A. (ed.) Vivisection in Historical Perspective. London: Routledge, 1990.
Logic and Critical Thought
Schick, T.S., and Lewis Vaughn. How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a
New Age. New York: McGraw-Hill 3rd edition, 2002.
Walton, Douglas. Informal Logic. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Brenner, William H. Logic and Philosophy. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press,
1993.
Science
Curd, Martin, and J.A. Cover. Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues. New York: W.W
Norton Publishing, 1998.
Midgley, Mary. Science As Salvation: A Modern Myth and It’s Meaning. London:
Routledge, 1994.
Midgley, Mary. Evolution As A Religion. London: Methuen, 1985.
*Gross, Paul R., and Norman Levitt. Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its
Quarrels With Science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.
*Gross, Paul R., Norman Levitt, and Martin W. Lewis. The Flight From Science And
Reason. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1997.
*"While I strongly disagree with the authors’ opinions on the use of animals in biomedical research and on
their premise of why the animal rights movement exists, the books are never the less well worth reading for
what the authors have to say about how science is viewed in our time," Dr. Greek.
Valiela, Ivan. Doing Science. London: Oxford University Press. 2001.
Animal Rights/Protection
Griffin, Donald. Animal Minds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. University of
Chicago Press 1992.
Regan, Tom. The Case For Animal Rights. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983.
Regan, Tom. Empty Cages: Facing the Challenge of Animal Rights. Lanham, MD: Rowman
& Littlefield Publishers, 2004.
Midgley, Mary. Animals and Why They Matter. Athens: University of Georgia Press;
Reissue edition, 1998.
Regan, Tom, and Peter Singer, eds. Animal Rights and Human Obligations (2nd Edition).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1989.
Dombroski, Daniel. Babies and Beasts: The Argument from Marginal Cases. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press, 1997.
The Legal Case for Animal Research
Wise, Steven. Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights for Animals. Cambridge: Perseus
Books, 2001.
Wise, Steven M. Drawing the Line: Science and the Case for Animal Rights. Cambridge:
Perseus Books, 2003.
Religion and Animal Research
Scully, Mathew. Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to
Mercy. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2003.
McDaniel, Jay B. Of God and Pelicans: A Theology of Reverence for Life. Westminster:
John Knox Press, 1st ed edition, 1989.
Webb, Stephen H. On God and Dogs: A Christian Theology of Compassion for Animals.
London: Oxford University Press, New Edition, 2001.
Vivisection
In class today, we discussed the moral implications of a variety of topics, but one caught my attention the most.
The idea that experimenting on animals is considered a "need" by many that practice it, yet other alternatives are available, contradicting the idea of it being a need at all.
The National Anti-Vivisection Society (www.NAVS.org), based in Chicago, IL, combats animal experimentation and fights to close labs that practice it. According to the home page, "NAVS promotes greater compassion, respect and justice for animals through educational programs based on respected ethical and scientific theory and supported by extensive documentation of the cruelty and waste of vivisection."
Instead of experimenting on animals, NAVS suggests using human clinical trials for new drugs, because they are more effective and voluntary. Nobody will be forced into something, as animal test subjects are. Using animal models for human drugs doesn't work very well anyway since human biology is significantly different than animals so that drugs that work on the animals to combat certain things may not work on humans at all.
There is proof that in some cases drugs that cause birth defects in animals do not cause the same in humans. Some tumors in animals go away without drugs, whereas linger in humans without treatment. Why are animal models being used at all?
For the same reason why drugs tested on dogs and that work on dogs should not be used on cats, drugs tested on animals and work should not be used on humans.
The idea that experimenting on animals is considered a "need" by many that practice it, yet other alternatives are available, contradicting the idea of it being a need at all.
The National Anti-Vivisection Society (www.NAVS.org), based in Chicago, IL, combats animal experimentation and fights to close labs that practice it. According to the home page, "NAVS promotes greater compassion, respect and justice for animals through educational programs based on respected ethical and scientific theory and supported by extensive documentation of the cruelty and waste of vivisection."
Instead of experimenting on animals, NAVS suggests using human clinical trials for new drugs, because they are more effective and voluntary. Nobody will be forced into something, as animal test subjects are. Using animal models for human drugs doesn't work very well anyway since human biology is significantly different than animals so that drugs that work on the animals to combat certain things may not work on humans at all.
There is proof that in some cases drugs that cause birth defects in animals do not cause the same in humans. Some tumors in animals go away without drugs, whereas linger in humans without treatment. Why are animal models being used at all?
For the same reason why drugs tested on dogs and that work on dogs should not be used on cats, drugs tested on animals and work should not be used on humans.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Freedom, Religion and Moral Quandaries
In class today, we viewed the documentary: "To Love or to Kill: Man vs. Animals" and I'll admit that at times I could barely keep watching it.
Seeing cats be bashed over the head and boiled alive was very hard for me, as a cat-lover, but that wasn't the only part I had trouble with. The simple fact that humans don't seem to know quite how to deal with animals is more disturbing by far.
The documentary showed both extremes of the situation. Canned hunts and animal experimentation/ consumption practices, to extreme Vegans acting as part of their religion in such a way that it helps foster human starvation and the spread of virulent illnesses like the Bubonic plague because rats are held so sacred that killing them is believed to be an offense against the Gods.
The connection between religion and the treatment of animals was perhaps one of the most interesting, if hard accept, parts of the documentary. Being raised Catholic in America, I did not realize that other Catholic-dominated countries in the world resorted to what amounts to animal sacrifice, especially countries that are considered "modern", like Spain. Throwing goats out of tower windows and torturing bulls until they simply give up the fight (and are then shot on the steps of a church, no less) are sickening displays of ego. Somehow, I don't understand why torturing animals venerates the Catholic Patron saint of animals, Saint Francis of Assisi. It sounds more like an excuse in place of a justification.
The idea that brutalizing animals is somehow a holy and honorable thing makes me sick. It is no better than the Canned Hunts, where the entire idea is not for the challenge of a sport. The idea is an easy kill, skipping all the steps that predators in the wild have to go through, in order to obtain their prey. The animals used in these hunts are purchased beforehand, and given no chance of survival by the hunter. They are killed in such a way that it takes them a long time to die (the ram in the documentary took 45 minutes to bleed to death, suffering all the while), to prolong the "enjoyment" of the hunter for the killing experience, and to preserve the parts taken as trophies, such as the fur and head. The Pigeon Shooting was even less justifiable because the poor birds are not even needed for anything but as targets. The hunters do not make trophies of them, they are simply ground up and used as fertilizer afterwards. This "sport" involves disorienting and starving the birds, and then letting them loose for the few seconds it takes for them to be shot down. How is that a sport, again? And how the heck is it supposed to be a celebration of American Freedom?
Freedom?! How is caging other animals and letting them loose only to shoot them down in their mad attempt to escape a symbol of freedom? That's like starving a human criminal for a week, then letting him out of his cell to race towards a dinner plate, only to shoot him before he reaches it!
Maybe it's all the fault of religion, but I doubt it. Religion is the excuse. Just like it was "alright" for English Crusaders to invade Islamic Countries, it is acceptable to stab and shoot "lesser" animals because a book says so. Please. What kind of garbage is that? No, religion is just an excuse. Humans do these things for ego-trips. The whole "I'm king of the world" thing. They do it for the same reason that rape happens among humans. It's all about power, and the ones that have it lord it over, and force it down the throats of those that don't.
Seeing cats be bashed over the head and boiled alive was very hard for me, as a cat-lover, but that wasn't the only part I had trouble with. The simple fact that humans don't seem to know quite how to deal with animals is more disturbing by far.
The documentary showed both extremes of the situation. Canned hunts and animal experimentation/ consumption practices, to extreme Vegans acting as part of their religion in such a way that it helps foster human starvation and the spread of virulent illnesses like the Bubonic plague because rats are held so sacred that killing them is believed to be an offense against the Gods.
The connection between religion and the treatment of animals was perhaps one of the most interesting, if hard accept, parts of the documentary. Being raised Catholic in America, I did not realize that other Catholic-dominated countries in the world resorted to what amounts to animal sacrifice, especially countries that are considered "modern", like Spain. Throwing goats out of tower windows and torturing bulls until they simply give up the fight (and are then shot on the steps of a church, no less) are sickening displays of ego. Somehow, I don't understand why torturing animals venerates the Catholic Patron saint of animals, Saint Francis of Assisi. It sounds more like an excuse in place of a justification.
The idea that brutalizing animals is somehow a holy and honorable thing makes me sick. It is no better than the Canned Hunts, where the entire idea is not for the challenge of a sport. The idea is an easy kill, skipping all the steps that predators in the wild have to go through, in order to obtain their prey. The animals used in these hunts are purchased beforehand, and given no chance of survival by the hunter. They are killed in such a way that it takes them a long time to die (the ram in the documentary took 45 minutes to bleed to death, suffering all the while), to prolong the "enjoyment" of the hunter for the killing experience, and to preserve the parts taken as trophies, such as the fur and head. The Pigeon Shooting was even less justifiable because the poor birds are not even needed for anything but as targets. The hunters do not make trophies of them, they are simply ground up and used as fertilizer afterwards. This "sport" involves disorienting and starving the birds, and then letting them loose for the few seconds it takes for them to be shot down. How is that a sport, again? And how the heck is it supposed to be a celebration of American Freedom?
Freedom?! How is caging other animals and letting them loose only to shoot them down in their mad attempt to escape a symbol of freedom? That's like starving a human criminal for a week, then letting him out of his cell to race towards a dinner plate, only to shoot him before he reaches it!
Maybe it's all the fault of religion, but I doubt it. Religion is the excuse. Just like it was "alright" for English Crusaders to invade Islamic Countries, it is acceptable to stab and shoot "lesser" animals because a book says so. Please. What kind of garbage is that? No, religion is just an excuse. Humans do these things for ego-trips. The whole "I'm king of the world" thing. They do it for the same reason that rape happens among humans. It's all about power, and the ones that have it lord it over, and force it down the throats of those that don't.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Cows and Pigs
The latest reading in the "Animal Ethics Reader" raised some interesting points. Most especially, I think about pigs and cows.
In Wemelsfelder's "Lives of Quiet Desperation", pigs are the main concern. She explains how she worked with pigs a great deal, and knew their behavior patterns. Pigs are naturally inquisitive and active, and are also social creatures. Her essay discussed how she came upon a female pig that had been isolated in an empty pen, and how the animal had withdrawn into itself to such a degree that when she touched the pig, it barely acknowledged her at all.
The essay made me very sad because whenever I have come across pigs, they have always been in fairly large groups. This essay made me understand why. Depriving that female pig of companionship, and seeing what effect it had produced the same result, I think, that most animal experimentation would. Taken away from the natural way of things, an animal has no recourse but to become something it was not meant to be. In the case of this particular pig, she stopped being active, stopped being interested in anything happening around her, and was, quite simply and obviously, in a state of despair. Her body posture, and even the expression in her eyes made it clear to Wemelsfelder that just because a pig is not human, it didn't mean that a pig cannot feel.
Most assuredly pigs do.
As for cows, many articles in this section covered them. Everything from cow by products (like insulin and hormones used for medicine to treat things like diabetes, asthma and anemia, to tires and Antifreeze. The consumption of a cow does not stop at its meat. I'd never really thought of that, other than the obvious source of leather. I never thought to consider where the insulin that diabetics self-medicate with. I almost feel guilty about it.
William Stephens, in his own essay in Chapter 32 notes the top five reasons for a vegetarian diet. Number 2 blames the cattle industry for ecological damage, and it's no doubt very accurate, too. Ranches spread for thousands of acres, and the sheer size of the herds kept and bred for food and leather (among other things) must be staggering. These are grazing animals, obviously, so the effect that many grazers would have on the environment must be devestating!
In Wemelsfelder's "Lives of Quiet Desperation", pigs are the main concern. She explains how she worked with pigs a great deal, and knew their behavior patterns. Pigs are naturally inquisitive and active, and are also social creatures. Her essay discussed how she came upon a female pig that had been isolated in an empty pen, and how the animal had withdrawn into itself to such a degree that when she touched the pig, it barely acknowledged her at all.
The essay made me very sad because whenever I have come across pigs, they have always been in fairly large groups. This essay made me understand why. Depriving that female pig of companionship, and seeing what effect it had produced the same result, I think, that most animal experimentation would. Taken away from the natural way of things, an animal has no recourse but to become something it was not meant to be. In the case of this particular pig, she stopped being active, stopped being interested in anything happening around her, and was, quite simply and obviously, in a state of despair. Her body posture, and even the expression in her eyes made it clear to Wemelsfelder that just because a pig is not human, it didn't mean that a pig cannot feel.
Most assuredly pigs do.
As for cows, many articles in this section covered them. Everything from cow by products (like insulin and hormones used for medicine to treat things like diabetes, asthma and anemia, to tires and Antifreeze. The consumption of a cow does not stop at its meat. I'd never really thought of that, other than the obvious source of leather. I never thought to consider where the insulin that diabetics self-medicate with. I almost feel guilty about it.
William Stephens, in his own essay in Chapter 32 notes the top five reasons for a vegetarian diet. Number 2 blames the cattle industry for ecological damage, and it's no doubt very accurate, too. Ranches spread for thousands of acres, and the sheer size of the herds kept and bred for food and leather (among other things) must be staggering. These are grazing animals, obviously, so the effect that many grazers would have on the environment must be devestating!
Illness and early maturation of girls- troubling realizations
In class today, the idea that the degenerative disease Alzheimers may be directly related to the hormones and drugs that livestock are given, was raised. It's a worrisome though, especially since the disease is becoming all the more common. This is not a theory I'd heard before. To my knowledge, there had not been any widely-accepted theories as to the cause of the illness, and everything from genetics to long-term exposure to the television was under investigation.
Also troubling is the idea that these same drugs and hormones, forced upon these nonhuman animals "for their own protection" may be the cause for early sexual development in young girls. I had certainly heard that this was becoming an increasing problem, with girls as young as 10 starting to menstruate. I am just glad that, if it had to happen somewhere, it is the United States. That sounds awful, I suppose, but when you think about it, it would be far worse for this same event to take place early in some other cultures, where body mutilation of sexually mature girls is a sacred tradition, and leaves emotional and physical scars...and even can be lethal, in some cases if the unfortunate victims bleed out after the ceremony. I know for certain that many African Tribal nations have this practice, and perhaps some South American tribes do, as well.
Fran Hosken writes a compelling, but very graphic essay on this issue here:
http://http://www.nocirc.org/symposia/first/hosken.html
I'll warn you now that there are actually diagrams showing how the mutilation effects the women it has been performed on, and it is not something comfortably viewed.
Here is a short passage: "Many colorful myths are related all over Africa as reasons for the operations. Though all the myths are still believed by the ethnic groups involved inn the rural areas, many of the reasons are contradictory, and none of them are compatible with biological facts.
Most Africans who practice these operations believe that excision is a custom decreed by the ancestors; therefore, it must be complied with. Most often, men refuse to marry girls who are not excised. Since marriage is still the only career for a woman in most of Africa and the Middle East, the operations continue. "No proper Kikuyu would dream of marrying a girl who has not been circumcised," stated Jomo Kenyatta, the revered leader of Kenya, in his book, Facing Mount Kenya, which was written in the 1930s and continued to be published, and is also sold in tourist shops in Nairobi.
As President of Kenya for life, Kenyatta had great influence on Africans well beyond the borders of Kenya, and his much quoted statement is responsible for the mutilation of many thousands of helpless little girls and untold suffering and deaths."
Also troubling is the idea that these same drugs and hormones, forced upon these nonhuman animals "for their own protection" may be the cause for early sexual development in young girls. I had certainly heard that this was becoming an increasing problem, with girls as young as 10 starting to menstruate. I am just glad that, if it had to happen somewhere, it is the United States. That sounds awful, I suppose, but when you think about it, it would be far worse for this same event to take place early in some other cultures, where body mutilation of sexually mature girls is a sacred tradition, and leaves emotional and physical scars...and even can be lethal, in some cases if the unfortunate victims bleed out after the ceremony. I know for certain that many African Tribal nations have this practice, and perhaps some South American tribes do, as well.
Fran Hosken writes a compelling, but very graphic essay on this issue here:
http://http://www.nocirc.org/symposia/first/hosken.html
I'll warn you now that there are actually diagrams showing how the mutilation effects the women it has been performed on, and it is not something comfortably viewed.
Here is a short passage: "Many colorful myths are related all over Africa as reasons for the operations. Though all the myths are still believed by the ethnic groups involved inn the rural areas, many of the reasons are contradictory, and none of them are compatible with biological facts.
Most Africans who practice these operations believe that excision is a custom decreed by the ancestors; therefore, it must be complied with. Most often, men refuse to marry girls who are not excised. Since marriage is still the only career for a woman in most of Africa and the Middle East, the operations continue. "No proper Kikuyu would dream of marrying a girl who has not been circumcised," stated Jomo Kenyatta, the revered leader of Kenya, in his book, Facing Mount Kenya, which was written in the 1930s and continued to be published, and is also sold in tourist shops in Nairobi.
As President of Kenya for life, Kenyatta had great influence on Africans well beyond the borders of Kenya, and his much quoted statement is responsible for the mutilation of many thousands of helpless little girls and untold suffering and deaths."
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Diet and Daytime TV
I've never been one to be choosy about what I eat. Granted, I try to eat healthy enough that I wont be going down with all the health problems associated with things like binge-eating and high cholestoral. Even so, though, I don't think I really have it in me to ever give up on meat. I'm a meat & potatoes sort of girl, you know?
I need a burger every now and then, and sometimes even something like a steak. I enjoy salads, and I enjoy fruit, but I can't live off of those. I need me my chicken, my turkey and my fish. A vegetarian diet, however healthy, just isn't for me. Never has been.
Believe me, I give credit to those that manage it- it takes a lot more drive and will-power to give up on half of what makes up the diet of most everybody else. Making the choice to give up meat is no doubt a choice that will let them live longer than I will. Even knowing that, though, I don't think I could just change my entire diet around for a few extra years. I'm comfortable with my eating habits (well okay, I could definitely eat healthier, even sticking with my omnivorous diet), and when you find something that works for you, why change it?
There are plenty of arguments in favor of a vegetarian diet (things like being nice to nonhuman animals, for instance), but again, as much as I love animals, I don't think I could just not consume them anymore. That kind of decision would be hard to do. Habits are hard to break, and humans are nothing if not creatures of habit. How else to explain daytime television? It's always the same exact plot, but people keep tuning in. Not because it's good (because, really, it's not), but because they tuned in yesterday, and are compelled to continue to tune in every day, just to find out what happens, next.
I need a burger every now and then, and sometimes even something like a steak. I enjoy salads, and I enjoy fruit, but I can't live off of those. I need me my chicken, my turkey and my fish. A vegetarian diet, however healthy, just isn't for me. Never has been.
Believe me, I give credit to those that manage it- it takes a lot more drive and will-power to give up on half of what makes up the diet of most everybody else. Making the choice to give up meat is no doubt a choice that will let them live longer than I will. Even knowing that, though, I don't think I could just change my entire diet around for a few extra years. I'm comfortable with my eating habits (well okay, I could definitely eat healthier, even sticking with my omnivorous diet), and when you find something that works for you, why change it?
There are plenty of arguments in favor of a vegetarian diet (things like being nice to nonhuman animals, for instance), but again, as much as I love animals, I don't think I could just not consume them anymore. That kind of decision would be hard to do. Habits are hard to break, and humans are nothing if not creatures of habit. How else to explain daytime television? It's always the same exact plot, but people keep tuning in. Not because it's good (because, really, it's not), but because they tuned in yesterday, and are compelled to continue to tune in every day, just to find out what happens, next.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Letters, War, and Radishes: things to chew on
Being a copy-editor for the Beacon means that I often have the opporunity to read letters to the editor, as well as new editorials, before most everyone else. A great deal of buzz resulted from an editorial two issues ago about animal rights, and how "dumb" activists that support it, are.
The following week there were two biting letters to the editor protesting the editorial..and this week's issue will feature, it seems, a letter to the editor defending the original editorial against the two susequent protest letters.
The argument is against censorship over the opinions of the editorialist. I can understand that position, of course, but freedom of speach does not, or at least should not, cover name-calling. The editorial was juvenile in that respect, and this new letter fails to address that, in favor of attacking the administration, and the school, for censorship by printing the two protest letters.
Censorship is, to my mind, wrong. But so is making brash claims and attacks against something that has not been researched. How else can anyone form an intelligent argument without any facts? That is, I believe, the real reason behind the protest letters.
Why can't we all get along? No, never mind. I know why we can't. Humanity is stubborn, and we all feel that we are right in whatever it is we believe. How else can war be explained. There have been wars about land, about religion, about greed and about women named Hellen (if such myths can be believed). There just seems to need to be an excuse, and poof, there's a war.
The trouble is, there is no "winning" most wars. The death toll is always too high on both sides, or all sides, of the conflict for there to be any true winner. Not unless the "winner" just happens to be the one that gets the flag in the end. I don't agree, frankly. War is a tragedy, and never produces a triumph. It also seems to be, sadly, an aspect of human nature that we seem unable to avoid.
At this point, all I can think is that maybe vegetarians are right- I'm willing to gamble. What have I got to lose? If we stop killing animals, perhaps we'll stop killing eachother, too. I'd much rather kill a radish than a person.
The following week there were two biting letters to the editor protesting the editorial..and this week's issue will feature, it seems, a letter to the editor defending the original editorial against the two susequent protest letters.
The argument is against censorship over the opinions of the editorialist. I can understand that position, of course, but freedom of speach does not, or at least should not, cover name-calling. The editorial was juvenile in that respect, and this new letter fails to address that, in favor of attacking the administration, and the school, for censorship by printing the two protest letters.
Censorship is, to my mind, wrong. But so is making brash claims and attacks against something that has not been researched. How else can anyone form an intelligent argument without any facts? That is, I believe, the real reason behind the protest letters.
Why can't we all get along? No, never mind. I know why we can't. Humanity is stubborn, and we all feel that we are right in whatever it is we believe. How else can war be explained. There have been wars about land, about religion, about greed and about women named Hellen (if such myths can be believed). There just seems to need to be an excuse, and poof, there's a war.
The trouble is, there is no "winning" most wars. The death toll is always too high on both sides, or all sides, of the conflict for there to be any true winner. Not unless the "winner" just happens to be the one that gets the flag in the end. I don't agree, frankly. War is a tragedy, and never produces a triumph. It also seems to be, sadly, an aspect of human nature that we seem unable to avoid.
At this point, all I can think is that maybe vegetarians are right- I'm willing to gamble. What have I got to lose? If we stop killing animals, perhaps we'll stop killing eachother, too. I'd much rather kill a radish than a person.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
animal abuse, and the idiocy of the Court
Read this article, and tell me if you think this man really oughta be placed in a position to interact with animals again, during his probation!
Puppies' killer sentenced to prison, work with animals
The man killed at least four puppies and buried them, authorities say.
By COLLEEN JENKINS
Published February 13, 2007
TAMPA - First he killed Romeo.
Then Sadie and Little Wiggles.
Then a pit bull named Angel.
Authorities say Benjamin M. Boatwright killed at least four puppies in two years and buried them outside his home in northeastern Hillsborough County.
An animal control officer said it was the most heinous animal abuse he had ever seen.
Circuit Judge Daniel Sleet decided Monday that it was serious enough to warrant prison time. He sentenced Boatwright, 25, to 2 1/2 years in prison and five years of probation. As part of his probation, Boatwright must perform 250 hours of community service at the Humane Society.
"You're going to take care of those animals that you mistreated," Sleet said.
Boatwright's landlord reported him for suspicious behavior, prosecutor Kristen Over said.
When an officer asked what happened to Romeo, Boatwright said he shot the dog in the head after it bit Sally Dykes, his live-in girlfriend. The dog didn't die immediately, he told the officer, so he kicked it in the head.
Later, Boatwright said Romeo died after being hit by a car.
The officer found Sadie's remains in a backyard grave. A plastic bag was tied around the German shepherd's skull, and tests showed two pellets inside, Over said.
Little Wiggles whined too much, Boatwright said. So he choked the dog to death. Angel pooped inside Boatwright's mobile home. He kicked the puppy into a cabinet, fatally fracturing its skull.
After pleading guilty last month to three counts of animal cruelty, Boatwright said he was high on drugs when he killed Sadie and Angel.
Colleen Jenkins can be reached at 813 226-3337
Puppies' killer sentenced to prison, work with animals
The man killed at least four puppies and buried them, authorities say.
By COLLEEN JENKINS
Published February 13, 2007
TAMPA - First he killed Romeo.
Then Sadie and Little Wiggles.
Then a pit bull named Angel.
Authorities say Benjamin M. Boatwright killed at least four puppies in two years and buried them outside his home in northeastern Hillsborough County.
An animal control officer said it was the most heinous animal abuse he had ever seen.
Circuit Judge Daniel Sleet decided Monday that it was serious enough to warrant prison time. He sentenced Boatwright, 25, to 2 1/2 years in prison and five years of probation. As part of his probation, Boatwright must perform 250 hours of community service at the Humane Society.
"You're going to take care of those animals that you mistreated," Sleet said.
Boatwright's landlord reported him for suspicious behavior, prosecutor Kristen Over said.
When an officer asked what happened to Romeo, Boatwright said he shot the dog in the head after it bit Sally Dykes, his live-in girlfriend. The dog didn't die immediately, he told the officer, so he kicked it in the head.
Later, Boatwright said Romeo died after being hit by a car.
The officer found Sadie's remains in a backyard grave. A plastic bag was tied around the German shepherd's skull, and tests showed two pellets inside, Over said.
Little Wiggles whined too much, Boatwright said. So he choked the dog to death. Angel pooped inside Boatwright's mobile home. He kicked the puppy into a cabinet, fatally fracturing its skull.
After pleading guilty last month to three counts of animal cruelty, Boatwright said he was high on drugs when he killed Sadie and Angel.
Colleen Jenkins can be reached at 813 226-3337
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
A worrisome editorialistic viewpoint, and animal abuse on a general basis
In the Beacon editorial on Feb. 8, the editor ranted for quite awhile on the topic of animal rights. I bring this up only because of the fact that the author seemed to have absolutely no respect for animal rights, and went sofar as to ridicule those that advocate such things as animal welfare.
The editorial made me angry, and, being a copy-editor for the paper, I know that I'm not the only one. There will be two letters to the editor arguing against the editorial. Both of them are well-written, and protest the way that the editor's main argument against animal rights is simply ridiculous.
The main argument seems to be that advocating animal rights indicates the desire to see non-human animals gain the same legal, moral and social rights as humans. The editorial ridicules the idea of a dog suing its owner, for instance.
It also likens the actions of animal rights activists to the sorts of activists that burn down research labs and terrorize scientists for animal experimentation. Obviously the greater portion of non-human animal rights activists are not militant. '
I was not surprised that the editorial did not cite any sort of research on the topic of the rant, nor was there any indication of any. PETA and other organizations are not trying to gain non-human animals the same set of rights that we ourselves enjoy. Legal representation in court for non-human animals is, of course, rather silly. Advocating in court for animal welfare, however, is not.
Animal abuse cases are beginning to gain more attention thanks to various television shows on Animal Planet channel, among other venues, but it has a long way to go before every state takes animal abuse seriously. I read an article a few years ago about a stray cat that had had its fur burned off as a malicious prank. Dubbed Pheonix, the cat made a full recovery, and was adopted by the two people who found him, suffering and abandoned, on a roadside in Springfield, MA.
To my knowledge no one has been prosecuted for hurting Pheonix. It's a disheartening thought.
The editorial made me angry, and, being a copy-editor for the paper, I know that I'm not the only one. There will be two letters to the editor arguing against the editorial. Both of them are well-written, and protest the way that the editor's main argument against animal rights is simply ridiculous.
The main argument seems to be that advocating animal rights indicates the desire to see non-human animals gain the same legal, moral and social rights as humans. The editorial ridicules the idea of a dog suing its owner, for instance.
It also likens the actions of animal rights activists to the sorts of activists that burn down research labs and terrorize scientists for animal experimentation. Obviously the greater portion of non-human animal rights activists are not militant. '
I was not surprised that the editorial did not cite any sort of research on the topic of the rant, nor was there any indication of any. PETA and other organizations are not trying to gain non-human animals the same set of rights that we ourselves enjoy. Legal representation in court for non-human animals is, of course, rather silly. Advocating in court for animal welfare, however, is not.
Animal abuse cases are beginning to gain more attention thanks to various television shows on Animal Planet channel, among other venues, but it has a long way to go before every state takes animal abuse seriously. I read an article a few years ago about a stray cat that had had its fur burned off as a malicious prank. Dubbed Pheonix, the cat made a full recovery, and was adopted by the two people who found him, suffering and abandoned, on a roadside in Springfield, MA.
To my knowledge no one has been prosecuted for hurting Pheonix. It's a disheartening thought.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
A conversation
With permission from a friend, I'm posting up a discussion I had with her about the A&E class
Animals & Ethics is the class title
it's all about the evolution of morality, and whether or not animals can be moral creatures, or if its merely humanity that has that ability
ghost: wow
ghost: a bit mind-blowing
Yes. but the reading sometimes makes my brain want to explode.
it has so very many philosophy jargon and such that I'm constantly flipping through dictionaries
ghost: well morality is an odd word, hard to define, is it an agreement between two
ghost: as in morals about not killing eachother so a community can exist
ghost: kinda hard to live side by side if we are always injuring eachother in different ways
It's all of it. sociality as a moral construct, the argument for vegetarianism..
ghost: ahh, but i have eye teeth that are sharp
ghost: though i do adore animals
ghost: and eat very few
Yes, humans are omnivorous by physiology. That is one of the arguments against vegetarianism
ghost: no bunnies
But that's where morals come in. If it's wrong to kill, is it wrong to kill animals? or just SOME animals?
ghost:we kiss bunnies
Which ones? how can you choose? Is one more valuable than another because it's cute? That's the stuff this class discusses
ghost: ahh, i think its the domestic thing
ghost: livestock, and farms
ghost: um, is it wrong to kill animals? Animals kill animals, but being humane in the killing, that is a human issue.
ghost: this is great stuff ally
What about whales and fish and wolves and wild horses. birds?
It's not just about killing for consumption:
Animal testing for human products, circuses, zoos
ghost: definitely.
Why is it ok to boil a live lobster, but not something else?
ghost: does make the head spin
ghost: my sister is an ultra vegan
ghost:I know where her thoughts lay
ghost: meat = murder
ghost: I'm not as hard on that
ghost: but humane killing, is an issue
I eat meat, but now i'm developing a guilt complex from this class, haha.
It's like..I want to apologize every time I have chicken
ghost: me too actually
ghost: cause
oh, and things like puppy and exotic animal mills and such are also discussed in this class. breeding animals just for aesthetic value in fur farms and exotics black market sales.
The whole phenom of the white tiger, for instance..inbreeding. Most that are born are so disabled or disfigured that no circus will show them, and they are either killed or used for the fur trade. It's sad. I've done research.
ghost: see, thats why I'd end up like Rena (my sister)
ghost: i do eat cheese 24/7
You really do. I've noticed. Ah, but cheese comes from milk which comes from cows. Is it morally right to steal from cows?
ghost: yes it is, or you might ask, killing plants for salad, or microbes in water, is it time for me to die than hmm, what is left ? see
Exactly. almost everything a person does kills something. It's a tricky issue
ghost: yes
Even Vegans.
ghost:yes
They kill stuff all the time by breathing.
ghost: brown rice kills the rice plant.
ghost: and tofu kills the soy plant
ghost: so back to
ghost: raising livestock for food
Yeah.
Animals & Ethics is the class title
it's all about the evolution of morality, and whether or not animals can be moral creatures, or if its merely humanity that has that ability
ghost: wow
ghost: a bit mind-blowing
Yes. but the reading sometimes makes my brain want to explode.
it has so very many philosophy jargon and such that I'm constantly flipping through dictionaries
ghost: well morality is an odd word, hard to define, is it an agreement between two
ghost: as in morals about not killing eachother so a community can exist
ghost: kinda hard to live side by side if we are always injuring eachother in different ways
It's all of it. sociality as a moral construct, the argument for vegetarianism..
ghost: ahh, but i have eye teeth that are sharp
ghost: though i do adore animals
ghost: and eat very few
Yes, humans are omnivorous by physiology. That is one of the arguments against vegetarianism
ghost: no bunnies
But that's where morals come in. If it's wrong to kill, is it wrong to kill animals? or just SOME animals?
ghost:we kiss bunnies
Which ones? how can you choose? Is one more valuable than another because it's cute? That's the stuff this class discusses
ghost: ahh, i think its the domestic thing
ghost: livestock, and farms
ghost: um, is it wrong to kill animals? Animals kill animals, but being humane in the killing, that is a human issue.
ghost: this is great stuff ally
What about whales and fish and wolves and wild horses. birds?
It's not just about killing for consumption:
Animal testing for human products, circuses, zoos
ghost: definitely.
Why is it ok to boil a live lobster, but not something else?
ghost: does make the head spin
ghost: my sister is an ultra vegan
ghost:I know where her thoughts lay
ghost: meat = murder
ghost: I'm not as hard on that
ghost: but humane killing, is an issue
I eat meat, but now i'm developing a guilt complex from this class, haha.
It's like..I want to apologize every time I have chicken
ghost: me too actually
ghost: cause
oh, and things like puppy and exotic animal mills and such are also discussed in this class. breeding animals just for aesthetic value in fur farms and exotics black market sales.
The whole phenom of the white tiger, for instance..inbreeding. Most that are born are so disabled or disfigured that no circus will show them, and they are either killed or used for the fur trade. It's sad. I've done research.
ghost: see, thats why I'd end up like Rena (my sister)
ghost: i do eat cheese 24/7
You really do. I've noticed. Ah, but cheese comes from milk which comes from cows. Is it morally right to steal from cows?
ghost: yes it is, or you might ask, killing plants for salad, or microbes in water, is it time for me to die than hmm, what is left ? see
Exactly. almost everything a person does kills something. It's a tricky issue
ghost: yes
Even Vegans.
ghost:yes
They kill stuff all the time by breathing.
ghost: brown rice kills the rice plant.
ghost: and tofu kills the soy plant
ghost: so back to
ghost: raising livestock for food
Yeah.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Freedom over Morals?
In the class discussion today, interesting topics were brought up.
Liberty versus Morality, for instance.
The example brought up was lobsters, and how, to eat a lobster, one must boil said lobster. It really does put things into perspective, and leads a person to consider the freedom of being able to do something, to the righteousness of doing that same thing.
Is it right to boil another creature to death, just because it tastes good? Because a person has the ability do something, can it really be said that it is perfectly ok to do that thing? You certainly can't say that that is true for every case, and if you can't, does that make everything true, but only on a selective basis?
If a cow tasted better when boiled, would someone boil a cow alive? What about a dog?
And if the freedom to do any single thing is more important to people than the rightness of that action, where is the line drawn?
That's always seemed to be the case with my view of the NRA. Just because they can, should people own so many guns? Is it really safe for anyone else to have 80-year-olds to 18-year-olds (barring some legal inability that I don't know about) carry firearms around, simply because they can?
Shouldn't there be a better reason than "because"? Has there ever seemed to be the need for one? It seems that it is human nature ( sometimes, at least) to come up with a glib answer for everything, even when there isn't an answer.
"Why?" "Just Because."
I'd imagine that there are many people who never consider changing their eating habits, for instance, simply because that is how their habits are. Just because.
Liberty versus Morality, for instance.
The example brought up was lobsters, and how, to eat a lobster, one must boil said lobster. It really does put things into perspective, and leads a person to consider the freedom of being able to do something, to the righteousness of doing that same thing.
Is it right to boil another creature to death, just because it tastes good? Because a person has the ability do something, can it really be said that it is perfectly ok to do that thing? You certainly can't say that that is true for every case, and if you can't, does that make everything true, but only on a selective basis?
If a cow tasted better when boiled, would someone boil a cow alive? What about a dog?
And if the freedom to do any single thing is more important to people than the rightness of that action, where is the line drawn?
That's always seemed to be the case with my view of the NRA. Just because they can, should people own so many guns? Is it really safe for anyone else to have 80-year-olds to 18-year-olds (barring some legal inability that I don't know about) carry firearms around, simply because they can?
Shouldn't there be a better reason than "because"? Has there ever seemed to be the need for one? It seems that it is human nature ( sometimes, at least) to come up with a glib answer for everything, even when there isn't an answer.
"Why?" "Just Because."
I'd imagine that there are many people who never consider changing their eating habits, for instance, simply because that is how their habits are. Just because.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Dialogs
Being a writer of fiction, dialog has always seemed like an intelligent way to get points across. One of the text books for Animals & Ethics is written by someone who obviously thinks along those same lines, although to a certain extent, philosophical dialog is a bit different than fiction. The focus is not on the plotline, or characterization so much as it's on the dialog itself. The concepts, if you will.
I've read a philosophical dialog before. Plato, I think, from his Republic. I took a class on Critical Reading, once, and I believe that was where I came across it. I don't agree with everything Plato did, but his was truly a brilliant mind. The Bedford Glossary of Critical and Literary Terms has quite a bit to say about him, but most of it revolves around how he believed that all things stem from ideas, and a higher plane of existence.
I wonder what he would have thought about the topic of this class, though? It's very unlikely, I'd think, that many, if any ancient Greek philosophers would have thought to ponder anything beyond human morality and idealism. This seems to be a modern topic of debate. I'd love to know who the first philosopher was, that came to the conclusion that thinking about it at all was a wise choice..
I've read a philosophical dialog before. Plato, I think, from his Republic. I took a class on Critical Reading, once, and I believe that was where I came across it. I don't agree with everything Plato did, but his was truly a brilliant mind. The Bedford Glossary of Critical and Literary Terms has quite a bit to say about him, but most of it revolves around how he believed that all things stem from ideas, and a higher plane of existence.
I wonder what he would have thought about the topic of this class, though? It's very unlikely, I'd think, that many, if any ancient Greek philosophers would have thought to ponder anything beyond human morality and idealism. This seems to be a modern topic of debate. I'd love to know who the first philosopher was, that came to the conclusion that thinking about it at all was a wise choice..
Thursday, January 25, 2007
To Start with
I've never imagined myself as any sort of philosopher; I suppose you could say I'll admit to being a thinker, but nothing so very labeled as "philosopher". Not more than any other person, in any case.
Be that as it may, my decision to take a philosophy course stemmed directly from a simple desire to learn just what is what. The moral dilemma is an ageless thing; it seems that howsoever long there has been man (humans, that is), there has always been a question of what is right, what is wrong, and just what values do we all share in common that go beyond what is relative to our own experience..and what's simply inherent to us as a species?
Philosophy does nothing if not raise more questions, even as it might help to answer some. Maybe. Maybe not. The point is, it makes one think. A good thing, really, when the world seems to spend so very much time doing nothing of the sort. Hopefully, as I read the class texts, and converse with the other students in my class, I'll get a greater understanding of just how huge the entire debate really is.
Be that as it may, my decision to take a philosophy course stemmed directly from a simple desire to learn just what is what. The moral dilemma is an ageless thing; it seems that howsoever long there has been man (humans, that is), there has always been a question of what is right, what is wrong, and just what values do we all share in common that go beyond what is relative to our own experience..and what's simply inherent to us as a species?
Philosophy does nothing if not raise more questions, even as it might help to answer some. Maybe. Maybe not. The point is, it makes one think. A good thing, really, when the world seems to spend so very much time doing nothing of the sort. Hopefully, as I read the class texts, and converse with the other students in my class, I'll get a greater understanding of just how huge the entire debate really is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
