Patriotism and Selfishness

Yesterday we brought up the topic of Peter Singer's expanding circle. This, along with Bryan's comment reminded me of the debate between patriotism and cosmopolitanism that we had in Constructing Reality last semester. Patriotism is love for your own country whereas cosmopolitanism is love for all countries and mankind. We are more likely to donate to a national organization than to a global one because we feel like we should help our own people before we help others. This also applies to animals. We are more likely to help our own species before we help another.

In someways I don't want to believe in the expanding circle because there are some overlays, and I feel like it's not always true. But when it comes down to it, whether our intentions are pure or not, we are all selfish. You and your family comes first, then your friends, and so on. This isn't necessarily a bad thing or something that we can help because no creature can be truly selfless, but is it right? It relates to the idea of altruism: can we really do things without getting something out of it? We have animals and love animals, but we receive love back from them (well the majority of our dogs, cats, horses, etc., at least). Yet, no matter how much "love" you have for them are you going to put them first? Are you going to put their well being over your families?

Think of all the reasons why trees are important: We need them for oxygen-carbon dioxide exchange, some produce beautiful flowers in the spring, they give us shade in the summer, fall foliage, the way snow looks on the bare winter branches, etc. All of these reasons are based around humans. Since trees are important to humans for these reasons, we make sure that there is the right ratio of needed trees to mini malls. (Or do we?)

If you asked random people on the street why do they think animals are important, I guarantee at least half of the most common answers will deal with human interests.

Is it so wrong that we put other humans, sometimes even strangers in front of our own dogs? If you were to say that you would put your dog in front of another human, people wouldn't value your opinion. For example: life boat ethics. Should we bring the dog with us because there will be more happiness (utilitarian point of view), or should we bring the annoying guy that no one likes because according to our society it is "the right thing to do."

Speciesism is an engraved unconscious moral. Maybe this is due to conformity or maybe it's inherent in our nature like Todd points out/questions in one of his posts. But regardless of why we think this way, if you ask someone to justify, they'll look at you like it's a no-brainer. But is it really? We think this is our world, that this world revolves around us because we have the most intelligence and the most power. We believe that to question whether to bring the dog or the annoying human is an unethical thought all together. Infact, if that did occur, those people would probably get sued.

Speciesism is selfish in some light but like patriotism, we are always going to pick our own first. Society may be wrong, but conformity and what's easier always wins whether it's right or not. So I ask: can we change societal views? Is it so bad that we want to help our species more than any other, or is this selfishness?