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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
