Responce to Jenna: Love

At the end of Jenna's post she asked "Do you think it is possible our pets can or do love us in the same way we love them? Can animals love at all?"


Unfortunately I don't think that our animals could ever love us as much as we love them. Love is a complex concept and a secondary emotion. I believe that animals can acquire primary emotions but they are not able to, or are less able to experience secondary emotions. Primary emotions are: fear, guilt, happiness, and anger. Secondary emotions are: love, jealousy, resentment, etc.
The frontal lobe is the center for emotions, memory, and ideas. Since humans have a more developed frontal lobe it makes sense that we can feel more complex emotions.
Most people (especially pet owners) don't want to hear this sad truth because they don't want to believe that their animals don't love them as much as they are loved. But, believing this would be anthropomorphism.
There are different kinds of love, like friendship love and romantic love. To a slight extent I do believe that your pets can feel friendship love, yet they cannot feel romantic love with another of it's kind. There are certain species that are known to be able to love, like penguins. Yet it shows in animals that do not stay with the same mate, that their is no romantic love within that species. So yes, some animals can love and others cannot.
The caudate and the ventral tegmental are the parts of the brain that have been scientifically proven to be the parts that stimulate the feeling of love. Do animals have such brain structures? If so does that mean that they have the capacity to love?

Animal Conscious

I began discussing my argument in class today about animal's ability to think and be conscious.

In Bermond's stance on animal experience he states:

We cannot imagine emotional experiences accompanying cognition's: for instance feeling of fear is unthinkable with out thoughts like, 'how can I escape?', 'what should I do', Should I defend myself or should I run,' etc. All of these are part of our emotional experience.

The last sentence of this selected passage sticks out the most "...are a part of OUR emotional experience." Just because it's a part of our emotional experience, doesn't mean it necessarily has to be a part of theirs. We are unable to think of fear without words because that is what have had all our lives. How could we feel emotion without the words we readily have at our disposal? And if this is so, than must it follow that deaf-mutes also cannot have emotional experiences?

I for one have experienced fear without words. It's called shocked. Haven't you ever been scared speechless? When you are scared you do not think before hand, "I am going to scream." When someone startles you, do you tell your sympathetic somatic response to activate? These seem to be ways of feeling fear without words. Instead of thinking, "I think someone is behind me, I should walk faster", an animal just walks faster. It's only after you scream, that you say that you were scared. It's only after your heart starts to slow back down that you say you were startled. My point is that we can imagine what it's like to experience fear in words, but also what it is like without them.

Some may say that animals consciousness is like driving on a faimiliar road or like having "blindsightedness." Yet in responce to the blindsighted argument, like Lynch stated, we are able to do these things on autopilot because we are intelligent creatures. Less intelligent creatures have to think fully about difficult tasks because they are harder for them to achieve.

Words are a powerful things and in some aspects our words help us suffer less than animals. Mind over matter is one argument to prove this statement. We are able to tell ourselves that we are not in pain and convince ourselves to the point that we do not feel pain anymore. Like when we are at the dentist we can think about something completly different and virtually block the pain receptors. Another argument is that words help us have less fear because our rationale tells us that everything is going to be okay. When put in a fearful situation we have the capability to control our breathing, and reasure ourselves. This of course is not an ability that non-human animals posses. Words are our coping mechanism. We are able to stop and think about the possibilities and what may happen instead of jumping to conclusions or resorting to ancestral instincts. Lastly, words can have therapeutic effects. Like when someone makes you feel better by talking to you. I'm sure that we have all been in situations when we felt upset or angry and a friend talked us through.

In class, I spoke about being able to think without words. That split second before you say your response, you have the vital emotions that create those words that make up your rebuttal. This leads me to my question: Is there considered no thought in the thought process? Is a thought only a thought if it is spoken or translated into a language?

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?

Re: Nick's, Animal's and Ethic's #2

In Nick's post he gives two scenarios. One about a dog accidentally killing a child and the other about a lion attacking and killing people. He then asks, 'Is killing the lion is more reliable than killing the dog because we invite the dog into our home? Do we automatically shed the responsibility of the owners?'

In the case of the dog accidentally killing an infant (one moral agent killing another) I can't help but feel that it is the responsibility of the owners. Yes, I do believe that society automatically sheds the accountability of the owners, but these cases should be looked at more carefully. Dogs act like they are taught to act, and if a dog is misbehaving then behavior interventions can take place to change the behaviors of said dog. The owners must have known that their dog was aggressive, and they did nothing to change that. Dogs don't just start acting vicious randomly one day. Since they had known that their dog was capable of harming their infant and they let the dog near the infant it is clearly their fault. Yet, society blames the dog and then they kill it to prove that they are more powerful.

As for the lion, I do believe that we have more justification for killing it, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we should. It's behaviors are purely instinctual and not influenced by humans. If it possible to get the lion back into it's natural habitat without killing it, then that's what should be done, but if not, that gives justification for terminating it's life. If the lion persisted, it would just keep killing and attacking several people. Therefore by terminating it, they are taking one life to save many.

Do you think that as humans, it is an instinct to prove that we are more powerful?

What do we do?

I just read that an estimated 17 million to 100 million animals die due to testing every year. That could be about a million every four days. Shocking. But what can we do about it? There are only so many things we can boycott like shampoos, make-up, and lotion. But as for things like prescribed pills, boycotting is usually not an option. What do we do? (All the more reason to be a vegetarian I guess.)

I believe that the amount of harm done to these animals could easily be decreased, but animal testing in general will sadly never go away. It makes sense why too. If the biomedical/pharmaceutical companies dealt with human subjects there would be lawyers, contracts, insurance, and the latter to be dealt with. Animal testing is an easy way out, but is it the best? I do agree that humans that already have cancer and are at the end of their rope should be the subjects for experimental treatments. Maybe if it was humans, they would be a bit more careful when testing a new treatment. (I'm sure that researchers only test what they have reason to believe is a cure. But what do I know, I didn't even know that they purposely give dogs cancer.) Of course, for it to get to the level of human drug trails, it still needs to be tested on animals. If fact, if they allowed human subjects to be tested, even more tests would probably have to be done. They don't want to risk being sued.

I still strongly disagree with Singer in his stance that people from hospital wards should be tested. They are in no mental state to consent, and it is extremely unethical from a psychological standpoint. Yet, convicts as subjects sounds like a plan to me-- unfortunately that goes against cruel and unusual punishment. While our rapists and murders live, our society is driven by our Darwinian complex and our strong desire for a cure.

But what do we do? What can we do to help?