So, we have been talking a lot about the order in which we as humans place importance on life. We first choose our interests, then our families interests, friends, neighbors, pets… and so on, not necessarily in that exact order depending on the person. But for most of us we would choose to save our own lives or the lives of our children over our pet’s life or the life of our neighbor. I think we naturally choose humanity over animals because of our nature. If there were two humans and one dog on an island and the dog and one of the humans had somehow gotten injured, the second human would most likely give the last of their medical supplies to the injured human and not the dog.
Why do we do this? Is it just in our born human nature to want to choose the human over the animal or have we been socialized to do so because of social norms/pressures, biases, and “isms?”
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Response to Isa
Why does our culture act so stubborn and ignorant to the vegetarian practices? And is that crippling to our society /culture?
I think our culture has a hard time with change, any culture for that matter.
Definition of culture (taken from Webster):
The customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also: the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life} shared by people in a place or time; the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations.
Culture, as Isa mentioned, is a social norm. People “go with the crowd” as all of us know from high school. We don’t like to be the ones in the spot light. Being a Vegetarian goes against the norm and I think that is why so many people are stubborn and ignorant about the subject. They don’t want to learn more about what exactly it means to be a vegetarian because that would be like talking to the chess club as a cheerleader. And quite possibly the only reason some people do not become vegetarians is because of social pressures from family and friends, even if they would like too. Our culture has passed down the mindset that eating meat is just what we do as humans and it is good for us. It took numerous generations for all of the minority groups to be given recognition and I think it is going to be the same for vegetarians. Just in the short time I have been on earth I’ve seen progress, more and more places are offering vegetarian choices. It will take time but we will get there.
Do you think some people who might want to become vegetarians decide not to because of disapproval from family members? Does anyone have any personal experience with this?
I think our culture has a hard time with change, any culture for that matter.
Definition of culture (taken from Webster):
The customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also: the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life} shared by people in a place or time; the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations.
Culture, as Isa mentioned, is a social norm. People “go with the crowd” as all of us know from high school. We don’t like to be the ones in the spot light. Being a Vegetarian goes against the norm and I think that is why so many people are stubborn and ignorant about the subject. They don’t want to learn more about what exactly it means to be a vegetarian because that would be like talking to the chess club as a cheerleader. And quite possibly the only reason some people do not become vegetarians is because of social pressures from family and friends, even if they would like too. Our culture has passed down the mindset that eating meat is just what we do as humans and it is good for us. It took numerous generations for all of the minority groups to be given recognition and I think it is going to be the same for vegetarians. Just in the short time I have been on earth I’ve seen progress, more and more places are offering vegetarian choices. It will take time but we will get there.
Do you think some people who might want to become vegetarians decide not to because of disapproval from family members? Does anyone have any personal experience with this?
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Hunting vs. Factory Farm
We have previously talked briefly about hunting. My personal belief is that hunting should only be done for the survival of a human and not solely for the purpose of sport. But, then I read about how we produce our meat that we buy in stores. The conditions under which these animals live before their death, and the methods that kill them are heart wrenching. It seems that these animals suffer more in a produce line then they would if a hunter were to shoot them. The shot from a hunter’s gun would most likely kill the animal instantly with no suffering, whereas many of the animals we eat suffer from the day they are born to moment they die. At least these animals have lived a happy life in their natural habitat before their death. This of course is not always the case. Sometimes if a hunter shoots an animal they will not die instantly and do suffer until that hunter shoots again, but the suffering is still much less. So I often contradict myself on this matter.
If the hunter that is hunting for sport kills the animal and actually eats it and uses it then he has not “wasted.” In Native American culture they would use every single part of the animals they killed, making sure not to waste any of the life they had taken. Under these circumstances I think it might be ok to hunt. However, the unnecessary killing of any animal really upsets me despite this fact.
Do you think it is “morally” better to hunt an animal yourself then it would be to buy it from a store, where the animal has been produced from such a place as a factory farm?
If the hunter that is hunting for sport kills the animal and actually eats it and uses it then he has not “wasted.” In Native American culture they would use every single part of the animals they killed, making sure not to waste any of the life they had taken. Under these circumstances I think it might be ok to hunt. However, the unnecessary killing of any animal really upsets me despite this fact.
Do you think it is “morally” better to hunt an animal yourself then it would be to buy it from a store, where the animal has been produced from such a place as a factory farm?
Response to Jacob: Vegetarian lifestyle expense
Is a vegetarian lifestyle more or less expensive, and by how much?
I think food, no matter what diet, is expensive. Meat in a meat eater’s diet is expensive just as, meat substitutes in a vegetarian’s diet are also expensive. I think grocery expense also depends on the family’s income. A middle to upper class family’s food cost will be less of a worry then a lower class families cost would be, despite their dietary choices. Like we discussed briefly in class on Friday, a lower class family might not be able to afford the “healthy” foods, maybe not even the normal priced food or meats. So, I don’t think being a vegetarian is any less expensive given that you have a stable income. The link below is to an article that I found to be interesting. It describes a woman who decided to test her theory that being a vegetarian does not cost more money or time.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0820/is_n212/ai_16845844/?tag=content;col1
It seems that the healthier something is for you the more expensive it is in the grocery store, do you think it is harder for a low income family to maintain a healthy diet because of this reason?
I think food, no matter what diet, is expensive. Meat in a meat eater’s diet is expensive just as, meat substitutes in a vegetarian’s diet are also expensive. I think grocery expense also depends on the family’s income. A middle to upper class family’s food cost will be less of a worry then a lower class families cost would be, despite their dietary choices. Like we discussed briefly in class on Friday, a lower class family might not be able to afford the “healthy” foods, maybe not even the normal priced food or meats. So, I don’t think being a vegetarian is any less expensive given that you have a stable income. The link below is to an article that I found to be interesting. It describes a woman who decided to test her theory that being a vegetarian does not cost more money or time.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0820/is_n212/ai_16845844/?tag=content;col1
It seems that the healthier something is for you the more expensive it is in the grocery store, do you think it is harder for a low income family to maintain a healthy diet because of this reason?
Friday, October 8, 2010
Expression
I feel like we really didn’t discuss cetaceans very much in class so I thought I would post a question about them. Mark Peter Simmonds discusses on page 194 in the book the anatomical differences between cetaceans and primates. He describes a view taken from Goold and Goold in The Animal Mind:
“Primatologists… assume that their subjects are to some degree self aware. In part this may arise not because primates are so much smarter than others species, but because it is easier for humans to read primate gestures and emotional expressions than the equivalents in, say, beavers or dolphins. It is easier for us to empathize with behavioral responses to situations that could touch our own lives.”
Simmods goes on to say, “thus they highlight the possibility that our interpretation of cetacean behavior might be hampered by a lack of empathy.”
I think it’s true that it is easier visually to see that a primate can understand and have certain feelings, if of course they really are having the feelings that their expressions are portraying. Which in my opinion apes do express how they feel, but getting back, we cannot visually see expressions as clearly from an animal such as a dolphin.
Do you think it is harder for us to have empathy and associate higher cognitive thinking to animals such as dolphins and whales because of their lack of expression?
“Primatologists… assume that their subjects are to some degree self aware. In part this may arise not because primates are so much smarter than others species, but because it is easier for humans to read primate gestures and emotional expressions than the equivalents in, say, beavers or dolphins. It is easier for us to empathize with behavioral responses to situations that could touch our own lives.”
Simmods goes on to say, “thus they highlight the possibility that our interpretation of cetacean behavior might be hampered by a lack of empathy.”
I think it’s true that it is easier visually to see that a primate can understand and have certain feelings, if of course they really are having the feelings that their expressions are portraying. Which in my opinion apes do express how they feel, but getting back, we cannot visually see expressions as clearly from an animal such as a dolphin.
Do you think it is harder for us to have empathy and associate higher cognitive thinking to animals such as dolphins and whales because of their lack of expression?
Response to Nicole: Pet Keeping v. Zoos
Do you think there is any defense to be made for zoos and keeping animals in cages?
The only defense I would consider would be similar to Jane Goodall’s stance on zoos.
She says:
“When compared with the life of chimpanzees living in danger zones in Africa, it sometimes seems to me that those in the really good zoos-those in which there are large enclosures, rich social groups, and an enriched environment-may in fact be better off. On the other hand, there are still many zoos that should be closed-zoos where chimpanzees are forced to live alone or in pairs in tiny cement-floored, iron-barred, old fashioned cages. There they suffer terribly from boredom.”
I am not an advocate of zoos, but I am an advocate of sanctuaries, where the rescued animals have an environment that is comfortable and fits their needs. Jane talks about an ape named Gregoire (page 179). This ape lived in horrid conditions for 40 years before he was rescued. It is hard for me to wrap my mind around the fact that people can bring themselves to treat animals in such ways, but they do it. I don’t think a zoo should be allowed to operate until it has been cleared by numerous animal specialists who can determine if every species of animal in the zoo has an appropriate space to live in according to the animal’s particular needs and wants.
Question: Some people keep their animals in cages at night or sometimes during the day while they work to keep their pets from destroying the house or peeing on the floors. How do you feel about keeping animals in cages for those reasons?
The only defense I would consider would be similar to Jane Goodall’s stance on zoos.
She says:
“When compared with the life of chimpanzees living in danger zones in Africa, it sometimes seems to me that those in the really good zoos-those in which there are large enclosures, rich social groups, and an enriched environment-may in fact be better off. On the other hand, there are still many zoos that should be closed-zoos where chimpanzees are forced to live alone or in pairs in tiny cement-floored, iron-barred, old fashioned cages. There they suffer terribly from boredom.”
I am not an advocate of zoos, but I am an advocate of sanctuaries, where the rescued animals have an environment that is comfortable and fits their needs. Jane talks about an ape named Gregoire (page 179). This ape lived in horrid conditions for 40 years before he was rescued. It is hard for me to wrap my mind around the fact that people can bring themselves to treat animals in such ways, but they do it. I don’t think a zoo should be allowed to operate until it has been cleared by numerous animal specialists who can determine if every species of animal in the zoo has an appropriate space to live in according to the animal’s particular needs and wants.
Question: Some people keep their animals in cages at night or sometimes during the day while they work to keep their pets from destroying the house or peeing on the floors. How do you feel about keeping animals in cages for those reasons?
Friday, October 1, 2010
Shocking
According to Bermond animals cannot think and therefore they are not capable of experiencing pain because they are not conscious beings. So why then do we use such things as shock collars to train our dogs not to bark? If Bermond is correct in assuming animals are not “smart” enough to comprehend or feel pain then shock collars shouldn’t work, right? Every time a dog barks the collar administers a shock which tells the dog to stop barking. But how does it tell them to do this?
Lynch demonstrates a great example of this; if an animal is shocked when they attempt to take a food pellet they will refuse the pellet the next time it is offered to avoid the shock. So, an animal counts pain as a reason for refusing food. Just as a dog counts the pain given to them by the collar as a reason to stop barking. I think that there must be some thinking involved in this scenario. Sure, you can argue that it is just training and the animal isn’t really making the decision but if the animal was unable to perceive pain because of it lack of intelligence, as Bermond describes, then the shocks should not have any effect on the dog whatsoever and they would continue the behavior.
Why would we invent a shock collar to use on a dog to train them to stop barking if animals are cognitively unable to perceive pain? We wouldn’t, so where does this theory about the correlation between pain and reason derive, do you think reason or intelligence is related to pain and suffering?
Lynch demonstrates a great example of this; if an animal is shocked when they attempt to take a food pellet they will refuse the pellet the next time it is offered to avoid the shock. So, an animal counts pain as a reason for refusing food. Just as a dog counts the pain given to them by the collar as a reason to stop barking. I think that there must be some thinking involved in this scenario. Sure, you can argue that it is just training and the animal isn’t really making the decision but if the animal was unable to perceive pain because of it lack of intelligence, as Bermond describes, then the shocks should not have any effect on the dog whatsoever and they would continue the behavior.
Why would we invent a shock collar to use on a dog to train them to stop barking if animals are cognitively unable to perceive pain? We wouldn’t, so where does this theory about the correlation between pain and reason derive, do you think reason or intelligence is related to pain and suffering?
Response to Mary: “Headaches”
Are there times when we can absolutely tell if an animal is self aware?
I think there are defiantly times when you can tell if an animal is self aware. My dog is currently suffering from having itchy skin. He has big balled spots in his fur because of the amount of scratching he has been doing. I can tell that he is aware of his pain because he cries when he is itching or sometimes when just lying down and his behaviors have changed. We often give him a bone to try to “get his mind off of it”. This is interesting because Mary brought up the discussion about when we have headaches. If we focus our attention on something else we forget about our headaches. I think an animal is the same way but only for that short amount of time that his mind is focused on eating the bone, just as our mind is unfocused for a short period. I don’t think they are always unaware of their pain. I believe that animals can suffer and are very much aware of the pain they are in.
Bermond thinks that humans project the feeling of pain onto animals because we get “emotionally aroused” by seeing them seriously hurt and not because they are actually suffering, do you think that this is a valid argument?
I think there are defiantly times when you can tell if an animal is self aware. My dog is currently suffering from having itchy skin. He has big balled spots in his fur because of the amount of scratching he has been doing. I can tell that he is aware of his pain because he cries when he is itching or sometimes when just lying down and his behaviors have changed. We often give him a bone to try to “get his mind off of it”. This is interesting because Mary brought up the discussion about when we have headaches. If we focus our attention on something else we forget about our headaches. I think an animal is the same way but only for that short amount of time that his mind is focused on eating the bone, just as our mind is unfocused for a short period. I don’t think they are always unaware of their pain. I believe that animals can suffer and are very much aware of the pain they are in.
Bermond thinks that humans project the feeling of pain onto animals because we get “emotionally aroused” by seeing them seriously hurt and not because they are actually suffering, do you think that this is a valid argument?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)