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?

Re: Kim's animal consciousness

In response to Paul and Mendel's paper Kim asked, "Are consciousness and cognitive abilities linked to such an extent that we cannot or should not separate them when considering the rights of animals?"

Throughout Kim's post she discussed the difference between cognition, consciousness, and self-consciousness. Cognition being the process of learning, memory, and manipulating information. Consciousness being the awareness of feelings, ideas, and emotions. Self-consciousness being the awareness that your feelings, thoughts, and emotions belong to you.

Cognitive abilities and consciousness cannot be separated when considering the rights of animals because this determines how responsible they are for their actions. Cognitive abilities should not be separated when considering the rights of animals because those are determining factors for the rights of humans. Therefore it would be speciesist for cognitive abilities and consciousness not to be considered. Let me explain.



I was always taught that people only resort to violence because their words aren't strong enough to knock the other person down. Until recently, little did I know how much truth this proverb holds. In psychological testing this week my class talked about IQ tests and the link between low verbal IQ scores and the likelihood of incarceration. This is because people who have low verbal IQ scores have a trouble communicating so they solve their problems by other means. Say for example Bob has a low verbal IQ score and he thinks Frank stole his money. Instead of Bob yelling at Frank and confronting him, he resorts to violence. He lets his emotions compensate for what his words cannot do. Whether or not Bob is aware that his emotions are in control of his actions or not, they still are. Kim stated, "One can be intelligent and communicate without emotions." This may be true, but one cannot be intelligent without being able to communicate their emotions.

These people with low verbal IQ scores and low communication abilities support Frey's theory. That language is a necessary condition for rights.

This is the same with animals. Animals cannot communicate verbally or if they do in their own language, the versatility isn't nearly as high as an average humans. So they also resort to actions. The difference is that animals cannot help but to reside to there actions. Humans, even at the low verbal IQ level they still have more of a choice.

My question is: Is there a better way to determine animals rights?