Re: Becca's "-Isms"

In Becca's post she asked: does ethical vegetarianism require its subscribers to abstain from eating eggs and dairy from factory farms? Why or why not? What do you think of red meat vegetarians and pescatarians. Do they have any merit?

Technically, vegetarianism does not require one to only purchase eggs and dairy products that are cruelty-free. Although, they should try their best to abstain from anything that has to do with factory farming. Yet, on the other hand they are making a huge contribution already by not eating meat, so why should they be limited even more? Everyone should only eat eggs and dairy from local farms but that is not always an option. Vegetarians should not be singled out in their efforts to make a change, everyone is just as responsible as they are.

The fact that someone told you that they are a pescatarian for moral reasons makes a lot of sense to me. Since factory farms are so harmful to the environment, a lot of environmentalists, including one that I know, are pescatarians. The person I know claims that he cares about the environment, but not animals. (Not every pescatarian feels this way). Being a pescatarian allows one to be environmentally friendly, while still consuming meat. Also, fish live a normal, free life up until the time that they are reeled in. These animals are not stuck in a cage all their life and have minimal suffering.

As for red meat vegetarians, they probably deserve a little less merit. I really like how you said the term merit. It is a sort of badge or insignia that one should be proud of if they are a vegetarian. Over the summer I had a friend who told me she was a vegetarian. One day, I was astonished to have her sit next to me eating what was clearly chicken. This was our conversation:

" I thought you were a vegetarian?"

"I am, but I eat chicken."

"Well, you're not a vegetarian then, you are a selective omnivore."

"People don't know what that is, and it is just easier to say 'I'm a vegetarian.' "

That comment really bothered me, especially how this girl made an effort to mention that she was a vegetarian whenever she could. I told her that she was falsely labeling herself and taking credit for something that she was not. The discussion went on.

I myself only eat chicken, yet would never say, "I'm a vegetarian" just because it is more convenient or I am worried that someone might not know what I mean. People who only eat chicken do deserve some merit, but certainly not to the extent that full out vegetarians do. They deserve this because they are avoiding meat to an extent. The typical person in our society eats fish, beef, pork, chicken and sometimes deer. So 3 out of four or five isn't that bad. Here is my reasoning for choosing chicken as my only meat source:

Pigs are very intelligent, they are more intelligent than dogs. I do not want to eat the smartest animal on the farm. Cows and other livestock contribute pollution to the environment more than any other source. And fish, I just don't find them appetizing.

Why should someone subside from all types of meat? In my view any absence helps. One less steak bought is one less cow killed. I do not understand why it has to be as extreme as you either have to eat all animals or none. I guess I really like chicken because it tastes so good and it is really difficult to give it up. So I figure if I cannot give up chicken and be happy, then I should limit myself to the amount of chicken I consume and give up all other animal sources. If everyone just choose one or two different meat sources and limited themselves to the amount of those animals then a lot less animals would be killed.

Question: For all of the non-vegetarians out there, do you think that it is possible to choose one meat source and be happy with how your diet affects you?

A Taste For Vegetarianism

Taste, a sense that tells us if we enjoy or do not enjoy a certain type of food or drink. This opinion in result, determines what we prefer to consume. In class today it dawned on me that no matter what the excuse for not being a vegetarian (not that you need an excuse) it all comes down to taste. No matter how busy someone is, what someones religion is, or how strong the peer pressure is, if they didn't like how meat tasted they wouldn't eat it. My argument is that the main reason why it is hard to be a vegetarian is because people enjoy the way meat tastes. Any other argument is an excuse, cover-up reason, or a reason that would not be valid unless the person liked the way meat tasted.
I have a hard time comprehending the argument that, someone is too busy to be a vegetarian. There are many foods you do not have to cook, and meat is not one of them. It takes a lot of time to make a meal with meat in it. People who are really busy live off of granola bars and protein shakes. If you did not enjoy the way meat tasted you would be able to find time to think of alternative options.
Some religions justify the consumption of meat. Yet, those religions do not say that you have to eat meat. If you did not enjoy meat, it would not be against your religion not to eat meat.
The Peer pressure argument, is not valid by itself, it is difficult to not be influenced by your friend's food choices only if you liked them in the first place. Say for example, you and some of your friends go to another one of your friend's house. Your friend, whose house you went over just made Brussels sprouts. Hypothetically, you hate Brussels sprouts, the thought of eating them makes you sick inside. All of your friends like them and are enjoying them together.
Now let's say the situation above is the same except instead of Brussels sprouts it is pot roast. In this situation you are a new vegetarian and have not eaten meat in a month. This pot roast smells amazing, and your friend asks you if you want some and you say no. All of your other friends say yes, and you are sitting there watching everyone eat what you cannot have. Finally, you cave and have a little bit.
The fact that your friends were eating Brussels sprouts does not change the appeal of Brussels sprouts. Yet, the fact that they are eating pot roast does change the appeal. It is easy to subside from eating meat to a new vegetarian, or at least easier when influence is not around. Yet, when around others who eat meat it is difficult because they are reminded of how good it tastes. Peer pressure would not be a factor if they did not enjoy what was being persuaded. Just like someone who is on a diet and gives in when they see their friends eating a fresh batch of cookies. They could of easily avoided abstaining from eating cookies if they did not see their friends eating them. Out of sight, out of mind!
. Eating something that tastes good is reinforcing. Ceding to continue what is reinforcing is not always the easiest thing to do. In the hypothetical situations, it wasn't the pressure that was "too much" it was your will power that was not enough or the reinforcing feeling was too strong.

Question: Can you think of a reason for not being a vegatarian that does not have anything to do with taste preference? It may be hidden, I challenge you.

A Response to David Morton

David Morton's article, Some Ethical Issues in Biotechnology Involving Animals, he brings up some interesting, and some fallacious points. His last statment in his article was this, "The question is, should we do it, Or even start to research it? And what does it say about humans if we do?"

What does it say about humans if we do? That's pretty deep. What does it say? Human's love to learn and make technological advancements. We question everything, it is what makes us human. Why? How? Those three -letter words drive us to do many things. Oh, curiosity. We want to find a cure for cancer and researchers use many animals to figure this out. But, what about changing the genes of a sheep so that their lungs will be human lungs, so that when an emphysemic patient needs a transplant their is one available? The life of that sheep was created solely for the purpose of developing those lungs. No offesense, but why should a sheep donate their human lungs just so that someone can smoke cigarettes all their life? What does that say about humans? Surely, I do not think that is what God intended, if someone is using that argument.
Perhaps transgensis shows how much humans put other human's well-being over anything else.
But in certain situations you have to think about the well-being of the animal over humans, like with the emphysema example. When we were on the topic of animal experimentation the comment that a lot of the experiments with animals do not translate to humans was made. I think that transgensis should only be used for experiments where the results from an experiment will not translate to humans unless the organs or tissues are human organs and tissues, and the results have a greaqter purpose than color of fish scales. Of course not many people can disagree with the utilitarian point of veiw. Experiments should not be for human aethetics.
Question: What do you think the use of biotechnology and transgensis says about humans?

Response to Max 12/10/10

Are there apparent limitations with this? I've done the quantifying (but there may be more human measures to ascertain), but what about the installation of these procedures?

Grades are a measure of how smart one is. Income is a measure of success. Statistics, numbers, symbols, lines on a graph, and labels are used to measure all types of things. Smart people do not necessarily always get good grades. The fact that someone is labeled as lower class does not mean that they are unsuccessful. If we had someway of measuring the ethicacy of the use of biotechnology on animals, what would it matter? In Max's senerio, the fact that a researcher is purposely inflicting pain on an animal in order to get this data in the first place is completely against research ethics. No EEG, z-score, t-test, quasi-experimental design, or hedonistic calculus is a sufficient way to measure suffering units. What would the numbers really tell us? Numbers do not change anything. When a biotechnologist thinks that changing the organs and tissues of livestock will greatly benefit humans, they will find a way to justify it no matter what the majority of people think is right or what the level of suffering units will be. So thinking of a way to measure the ethicacy of biotechnology seems useless to me.

Questions: Who decides if an experiment should or should not be carried out? (playing devil's advocate) On what grounds do philosopher's have a right to prevent future advancements in medicine?

Re: Bryan 12/4/10

In Bryan's latest post he asked, "What do you think about the role religion should play in the treatment of animals?"

It seems like most people in class feel as though religion should not play a role in the treatment of animals. Yet, I disagree. Religion is what people who are religious look to when determining what is ethically wrong or right. The constitution and the beginning laws of our country were based off of religion. This is true with many other cultures. Where do our morals come from, that is, what external sources? Laws, religion and culture. If we look to the bible for how to live our lives and how to treat others, then why is it so obscure to look to the same source for how to treat animals?

I think religion should play a role in the treatment of animals if you are a religious person. My family justifies their meat-eating alone on, "that's why God made them, for us to eat." Besides this reason there is no other justification for meat eating. "it tastes good" is simply not sufficient enough for me. Yet, if your religion justifies it, then it is okay.

The reason why no one brought up religion in reference to the treatment of animals in zoos or as pets is because it is not relevant. The bible says nothing about zoos, yet one could argue that when there is an endangered species that a Noah's Arc situation (one male, one female) is pronounced okay. Yet, that is not really saying much about the ethicacy of zoos. I really do not think that the bible says anything about pet keep either.

The bible does state to treat every creature kindly, whether that is explicit or not. If we were to use the bible as a reference for animal treatment law, I do not see the animals being treated worse than they are currently being treated.

Question: If the bible was used to create new animals treatment laws, would the treatment of animals become better or worse?

Animals as symbols in religion

In many religions animals symbolize certain things. For the christian religion:

The Lamb is an important symbol. John has phrases including "my sheep listen to my voice, I know them and they will follow me." (John 10:27) . During passover blood from the lamb was marked on the doors to prevent the "angel of death" from entering their homes. In Jerusalem lambs were made as daily sacrifices for the sins of others.
Jesus is called, "the Lamb of God" in John 1:29 and 1:36. The Lamb of God refers to Jesus as a sacrifice for sins. The bible seems to support the act of eating lambs if we were to spiritually interpret it. Because from a spiritual interpretation it would seem that eating a lamb would cleanse one's sins.

Around Christmas time, two doves are cadged in church. This is in the catholic religion, but I'm not sure if other Christians have this as well. These doves symbolizes the new and old testaments. The song "The twelve days of Christmas" has other animals that symbolize different things in the christian religion. These symbols were created because from the mid 16th to the early 19th century being Catholic was illegal in England. The twelve days of Christmas was a catechism song for those being confirmed, the code prevented them from being caught. A partrige in a pear tree symbolizes Jesus, three french hens symbolize the thological virtues- faith, hope, charity, four calling birds represents the four Gospels, six geese means the six days of creation, and seven swans symolize the seven sacrements. http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/music/12days.asp

These are only some of the things that animals symbolize in the christian religion. My questions are: What are some things that animals symbolize in other religions/cultures? How may the use of these symbols justify or not support the consumtion of these animals?

Re: Todd's Epstein Goes to Extremes

In Todd's latest post in response to Richard Epstein's article, he asked "Do you believe that animals can have freedom and liberty, even if we still utilize their resources and their labor?"
First I want to point out that I found this a very intriguing question. Yet, in order to answer it I want to first, list all human utilization of animals. Secondly, define freedom and liberty. And finally, determine if each utilization allows animals to be free and obtain liberty.
We use animals for many things, some more necessary than others. We use them for medical resources, as pets, modes of transportation, clothing/upholstery, zoo/aquarium attractions, farm hands, and food.
Freedom is, "The absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice of action." And liberty is, " The power to do as one pleases." (Both as defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Essentially, they mean the same thing.
For clothing/upholstery and food, the animal of course has no freedom or liberty because it's dead. (I apologize for my bluntness.) Yet, for the other conditions freedom and liberty is questionable. In a medical testing facility, the animals are free to do what they please when they are in their cage... as long as they are in their cage. Oh the abundance of choices. They are not free or at liberty to say if they do or do not want to be a part of an experiment. At times, I'm sure, They have to be held down or forced to participate.
For pets, their actions are limited to the dos and don't of their owners, they technically have less freedom than cows or any other farm animal in my opinion.
As for animals that are on the farm, (that serve as Farm hands, potential food, or transpiration) and animals that are in the aquarium or zoo their freedom and liberty is a bit more complex. They are free to roam and do as they please without constraint as long as they are inside the gates and walls that bind them. Their choices of actions are limited to this space and if they were to try to escape, they would be restrained from that decision. Yet, as long as they do not try to do that it appears as though they have liberty and freedom, at least to them.

Question: Are humans even free? Who has more freedom wild animals or humans?