...and although a noble cause it should not be confused with the extreme views on speciesm. Being a dog and all I am up us animals getting our fair share of justice and defense against cruelty and abuse from humans. I believe in common courtesy and not doing unto others what you don't want done unto you. But some people take it to the theoretical extreme and argument wise they do not stand on solid ground, to be as polite as I can. This is what I heard outside the class today:
Peter Singer "Animal Liberation"
"... the core of this book is the claim that to discriminate against beings solely on account of their species is a form of prejudice, immoral and indefensible in the same way that discrimination on the basis of race is...".
Mr. Singer deals with a sensitive subject for a lot of people and this book makes some excellent points. Although extreme at times, his intent is mainly to provoke and thus increase awareness of the people for this subject. The intent forgives some feats of fanaticism and zealously that would be otherwise deemed picturesque.
From a practical point of view there is no question that he is justified. Animals have been, and still are, mistreated in a variety of horrific ways for sometimes justifiable (justifiable cause, the violence isn't justified by the cause, that is why it is called mistreatment. ex killing vs torturing) but often questionable causes (dolphins ruining fish nets, dog-fights, bull-fights, poaching and hunting etc). Meat consumption, I will go as far to say, may really not be necessary in today's society. Abuse of the weaker inhabitants of this planet, whether this refers to animals, or humans is despicable in my opinion (I won't go into the morals behind that). The strong should wisely use their power to protect the weaker and not take advantage of them (again I won't go into why, which is a very good question. Lets just say that's how we are brought up).
Make no mistake! The above mentioned is just an opinion. Perhaps it is an opinion derived from emotion, maybe one that touches reason in terms of the fear of reciprocation (I am good to others because there are people who it is in my interest to be good to me too). In no case however, is this opinion bullet-proof, or a universal truth. We are good to others because we care about the prosperity of us and the species. We are good to others because society rewards this behaviour and punishes the exact opposite. We are good to others because of the principle of reciprocation holding for now and forever.
I however have no debt to animals or to humans. I have a practical debt to society and my family for bringing me up and depending on every persons sense of duty we may say we have an obligation to our distant ancestors. But we most certainly do not owe anything to dogs, with all due respect to the kind, loyal and loving tetrapod. What is given without choice, or as part of a fair transaction (I give the dog some food and in return I get some company), cannot be creating a debt.
I want to continue and give an account of some of the ideas that drew my attention to this book. Any disagreement is never out of spite. I want to pass my and Mr Singer's ideas through the test of fire. The one and only that removes any impurities and leaves the clean and honest truth.
Let me start by asking what is pain and suffering? The author of the book points out that every organism with a nervous system can feel pain and in this sense suffer. But should ones actions be judged only by the outcome? Shouldn't our intentions be considered too? So even if the recipient cannot suffer (as we mean it) our disposition to cause suffering should be held in contempt.
How do we cause pain or suffering? The natural state of a system, and from now on by system I mean a living organism, will not produce pain. Pain is a signal, a biological defense, whose result is to deter us from the course of action that has evoked it. It is used to protect us from the surrounding environment. By this definition any condition that can harm us, or our goals, or purpose will cause pain and suffering (if prolonged). This definition accommodates both simple needs (food, water, shelter) and more complex ones (freedom of speech).
If we cause pain to an agent by denying it the right to a free, unconstrained life, where it can freely pursue its goals and realize its potential, then I believe we all do so in our every day lives. It is called struggle for survival! Animals, plants, viruses, bacteria and trillions of microorganisms are slaughtered every day. They are brutally massacred. We are talking about atrocious genocides committed not in years but in seconds in the hands of a malicious house cleaner who dares to spill chlorine on the floor, or disinfecting a toilet bowl (what a brutal way to die). There is NO excuse for it. Humans do not require a completely sterile environment to survive and prosper. Maybe then we should clean our houses once a month...the bare minimum (the bare maximum for college students..).
The immediate counter that comes to mind? " Hahahaha...cute....Plants and microbes have no feelings...." Some scientists may disagree. Actually Mr. Singer in his book talks about a time when people where SURE that animals were machines (animal) with no feelings. How about a time when people KNEW the earth was flat. Let us then say that plants and microbes have no feelings that we know of. Still every living unit (cell to whale) has preferences. In cells we know of phototaxis, and chemotaxis. These are known behaviours, they happen in our immune system when in case of immune breach chemoattractants released form stores (dendritic cells) attract fighting cells (macrophages etc) to the site if the infection. Any interference with this behaviour is also violating the will, or the natural desire the cell is trying to exercise.
From a practical point of view there is no question that he is justified. Animals have been, and still are, mistreated in a variety of horrific ways for sometimes justifiable (justifiable cause, the violence isn't justified by the cause, that is why it is called mistreatment. ex killing vs torturing) but often questionable causes (dolphins ruining fish nets, dog-fights, bull-fights, poaching and hunting etc). Meat consumption, I will go as far to say, may really not be necessary in today's society. Abuse of the weaker inhabitants of this planet, whether this refers to animals, or humans is despicable in my opinion (I won't go into the morals behind that). The strong should wisely use their power to protect the weaker and not take advantage of them (again I won't go into why, which is a very good question. Lets just say that's how we are brought up).
Make no mistake! The above mentioned is just an opinion. Perhaps it is an opinion derived from emotion, maybe one that touches reason in terms of the fear of reciprocation (I am good to others because there are people who it is in my interest to be good to me too). In no case however, is this opinion bullet-proof, or a universal truth. We are good to others because we care about the prosperity of us and the species. We are good to others because society rewards this behaviour and punishes the exact opposite. We are good to others because of the principle of reciprocation holding for now and forever.
I however have no debt to animals or to humans. I have a practical debt to society and my family for bringing me up and depending on every persons sense of duty we may say we have an obligation to our distant ancestors. But we most certainly do not owe anything to dogs, with all due respect to the kind, loyal and loving tetrapod. What is given without choice, or as part of a fair transaction (I give the dog some food and in return I get some company), cannot be creating a debt.
I want to continue and give an account of some of the ideas that drew my attention to this book. Any disagreement is never out of spite. I want to pass my and Mr Singer's ideas through the test of fire. The one and only that removes any impurities and leaves the clean and honest truth.
Let me start by asking what is pain and suffering? The author of the book points out that every organism with a nervous system can feel pain and in this sense suffer. But should ones actions be judged only by the outcome? Shouldn't our intentions be considered too? So even if the recipient cannot suffer (as we mean it) our disposition to cause suffering should be held in contempt.
How do we cause pain or suffering? The natural state of a system, and from now on by system I mean a living organism, will not produce pain. Pain is a signal, a biological defense, whose result is to deter us from the course of action that has evoked it. It is used to protect us from the surrounding environment. By this definition any condition that can harm us, or our goals, or purpose will cause pain and suffering (if prolonged). This definition accommodates both simple needs (food, water, shelter) and more complex ones (freedom of speech).
If we cause pain to an agent by denying it the right to a free, unconstrained life, where it can freely pursue its goals and realize its potential, then I believe we all do so in our every day lives. It is called struggle for survival! Animals, plants, viruses, bacteria and trillions of microorganisms are slaughtered every day. They are brutally massacred. We are talking about atrocious genocides committed not in years but in seconds in the hands of a malicious house cleaner who dares to spill chlorine on the floor, or disinfecting a toilet bowl (what a brutal way to die). There is NO excuse for it. Humans do not require a completely sterile environment to survive and prosper. Maybe then we should clean our houses once a month...the bare minimum (the bare maximum for college students..).
The immediate counter that comes to mind? " Hahahaha...cute....Plants and microbes have no feelings...." Some scientists may disagree. Actually Mr. Singer in his book talks about a time when people where SURE that animals were machines (animal) with no feelings. How about a time when people KNEW the earth was flat. Let us then say that plants and microbes have no feelings that we know of. Still every living unit (cell to whale) has preferences. In cells we know of phototaxis, and chemotaxis. These are known behaviours, they happen in our immune system when in case of immune breach chemoattractants released form stores (dendritic cells) attract fighting cells (macrophages etc) to the site if the infection. Any interference with this behaviour is also violating the will, or the natural desire the cell is trying to exercise.
Weapons of mass destruction!!!
To be continued...
1 comment:
I support animal rights, but if I see a cockroach its going to die :)
Post a Comment