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?

The psychology of dolls

I was told that in my absence on Monday the subject of the psychology of dolls came up. Well, I'm not quiet sure what the question was, but I can give some psychological insight on dolls.

Girls are to dolls what boys are to guns. A lot of young boys go through a "gun phase" when they are younger (sadly some never grow out of it). It is a pretty big psychological debate whether or not to let young boys have fake toys guns or to take them away. On the female side, young girls are attracted to dolls because they offer them the ability to show nurturance. The idea that females have an innate need to care for others makes sense from an evolutionary point of view. Being nurturing is a trait that women have needed to possess. It was the wife who stayed home and raised her children and the husband who "brought home the bacon," so to say. This is still widely prevalent today. This is something that has been a part of human culture since the cave. It also explains the gun phase in boys, while it is no longer necessary for men to hunt and cavemen didn't have the technology, hunting still went on for quite a while in human history.

Dolls can also have a negative light to them. Barbie, is supposed to be this perfect women that girls want to be just like when they are older. Yet, studies have shown that barbie is linked to eating disorders in some women. A doll symbolizes not only nurturance, but beauty as well. I'd say that infant/baby dolls symbolize nurturance. Yet, barbie and other "teen" or "women" dolls act as a form of manifestation. Some girls pretend that they are these dolls and that they look just as beautiful as the unperceivably disproportional Barbie. Yet, dolls are not the only thing that shape our thoughts on what beauty is. Disney movies also have a huge impact. Belle, Cinderella, Snow white, Sleeping beauty, etc. they all look the same essentially. High cheek bones, clear completions, slim athletic bodies, small pert noses, big eyes, and full lips! (I'll stop there.) Society plays a huge role on this idea, the media and Barbie are just some factors, yet, every day life is the biggest factor of them all.

The fact that taking care of dolls and nurturing others is an innate trait in women and letting them have stuffed animals or dolls is not going to have a huge impact on how they treat animals. I think of it in terms of: If they are a nurturing person they will be nurturing to dolls, stuffed animals and pets.

Question: How does society shape the way we treat animals? How could society better improve this? How does society shape the way we treat eachother?

Response to Mary

Mary asked, "If people were to stop keeping pets, what would the effect of society be as well as the animal world?"
Something that I do not think that we have touched on yet, are the health benefits of owning animals. People who own dogs and cats are less likely to have: heart problems, depression, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, high triglyceride, stress, among many other benifits.
So naturally, if people stopped owning pets the rates of these disorders would rise
For the animal world, the effects to fish, snakes and cats would not change at all. Yet, for dogs, it would change immensely. Like we have been discussing in class, and like Mary discussed in her post, dogs have been domesticated so much that they would not be able to survive on their own. We change them to have shorter legs, longer torsos, rounder snouts. We desire these traits because they are more aesthetically pleasing to us, or these traits are quite possibly desired because they are more human (a manipulated selection that is a borderline satire of The Island of Dr. Moreau). Our extreme breeding choices for these animals has given dog owners the opportunity to turn something that is suppose to be a nurturing act into a real life Cosmo quiz: What dog are you.
Dogs need us for their survival, and if all the dogs were dispersed in the woods, I'm sure some of them would survive. (probably not shitus or chuwuwas). Never the less, both the human world and dog would would have significant changes, because they are so intertwined.

Question: Because animals give us so many health benifits does that give us a reason to breed dogs so that there is at a right dog for everyone's lifestlye? That is to say, different dogs are specifically designed for a certain lifestyle.