Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Prompt 13

In prompt number four, I wrote about how Singer speaks on animal liberation and argues against animal experimentation. It is unbelievably inhumane. I used his example of how we would not ever consider doing tests on humans to reinforce my point as to why we need to be more aware and take steps to alleviate inhumane and disgusting treatment of other species. Singer brings up the idea of speciesism and how as humans we are dominant over other species because we use the developmental advantages that we have to abuse the environment and nature. The way animals are killed is terrible and as a result it makes it kind of difficult to say that eating animals is moral in anyway. I think there is a very fine line that exists and depending upon how much of a "vegetarian mindset" one has, that will be the determining factor in whether or not someone sees eating animals as immoral or not. From my perspective I dont necessarily see eating animals as immoral because I am not a vegetarian. When i was a vegetarian a few years ago, I did see it as immoral but more than that I viewed eating animals as gross because they too were once living things. And as silly as this sounds, we would never eat a fellow human so then why do we deem it okay to inhumanely kill and eat other species. We live in such a backward culture and are hypocritical because the same laws and rules do not apply to animals and nature as they do to humans.

Prompt 11, deals with the difference between being an animal activist and being an environmentalist. When i wrote the post, I identified with the environmentalist standpoint more so than the animal activist standpoint. I dont really see how taking animals out of their natural habitats would help preserve the environment, ecosystem and biodiversity other than protecting certain species that are endangered and so on. With that said i think that all species should be protected regardless of how rare it may be and that we shouldn't just make efforts and strides of protect and care for animals that are rare or that as humans we think are cool looking. At the same time, taking animals out of their natural habitat disturbs the balance and I think it to be relatively inhumane to put an animal in a cage or on display at a zoo. I understand the reasoning behind it as i just expressed but i just find it hard to accept that that is the only solution. I think that the government should create more land like national parks where humans are not allowed to go in and destroy and ravage the land and act in an inhumane way that shows disrespect for animals and nature. We need to keep animals in their natural environment because it allows for the natural balance of earth and nature to continue to exist.

From the my earlier posts to now I have noticed that my opinion on the environment and treatment of species has strengthened. I think I have been able to take the ideas and concepts that I learned and read about and used them in a way that allowed me to reinforce my earlier views.

http://leahheis.blogspot.com/2012/01/prompt-4.html
http://leahheis.blogspot.com/2012/01/prompt-11.html


Response to: http://parenethical.com/phil149win12/prompt-13/

5 comments:

  1. I think its interesting how your views changed. It appears that your views changed dramatically into greatly supporting ethological ethics. What articles spurred this change? Also, why did you stop being a vegetarian? I frequently consume meat but still disapprove of the treatment of livestock in factory farms. Economics is a huge reason behind this. I think you could also mention economics since that is one of the chief reasons for animal abuse in factory farms.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm also curious to know why you stopped being a vegetarian. The fact that animals are alive doesn't change nor does it change that they were once alive and now on your plate. For me, vegetarianism was a choice I had among many, but the only choice. I guess I committed myself for different reasons. It is interesting your view of animals changed so dramatically from an animal rights perspective to an environmentalist one. I feel like you too are conflicted about how to go about protecting animals because it raises the question if it's better to care for the animals or the environment which is shown by your example of protecting animals. There is a lot of difficulty in finding the perfect balance and a solution that everyone can agree too - environmentalist and animal rights activist alike. Maybe that's why we have been so slow to instill change.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think you really need to clarify your ideas. I am very confused as to whether you think it's acceptable to consume animals products or not. You seem to say both and then discuss ecological ethics, but never connect or dispute the two. I think you should directly state what you classify yourself as? Your experience as a vegetarian clearly has personal implications, but what do you think outside of that. Do you have any recommendations for the rest of the population Sagoff argues about how your two positions never coincide, and even brings capitalism into play. What do you think of these ideas? I think it would help you to delve deeper into the relationship between human population/expansion and animal rights. There is an interesting interplay that I think would contribute well to your argument.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I like how you admit your views have changed, I am however curious about your criticism of animal testing because you feel humans aren't tested on. Humans are repeatedly tested on...medical explorations, drug trials, psychological experimentation and research..even surveys are a form of testing. It is regrettable that technology has not advanced beyond a point of needing test subjects but they are very necessary. Like Thomas I admit to being a bit unsure as to whether or not you are in favor of or against the consumption of animal products. What was your reason for stopping being a vegetarian?
    Does this shape your environmental ethical views?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't completely agree that we live in a backwards society because humans eat other animals. I do think that it is wrong to inhumanely kill animals, but I think that just because we eat meat doesn't mean that we are completely backwards or hypocritical. The way to survive is to get energy from another living being, and this means that someone has to get eaten. It may not always be fair but all animals do it. Humans have an advantage in this situation which may make us out to be these immoral beings because we eat animals and they don't have the same rights as humans, but look at how humans have evolved. At one point we may have been equal and fair prey to predators along with animals like tigers or bears (their distant relatives of course). But eventually humans began to develop tools and technology and ways of protection that gave us a leg up in the food chain. We had the ability to become the top predators, and prevent ourselves from being eaten, and we still are to this day. I don't think this makes us immoral, we have just evolved to a higher position in the food chain. Are other top predators just as immoral? I think that the only immoral aspect of humans eating meat is the ways in which we acquire our food nowadays. Factory farms are certainly horrible places for animals, and other human action is devastating to nature as well. I do agree that we need to focus our attention on preserving the natural habitats of these animals and stop exploiting them. Do you side more with environmental ethics or animal liberation now?

    ReplyDelete