Where I stand after this class

I am morally obliged to be a vegetarian because I believe that nonhumans are fully deserving of personhood status. Nonhumans satisfy the subject of a life criterion as proposed by Tom Regan, which states that those beings who are conscious of themselves (they feel, perceive, and have an interest in the state of their welfare) have inherent value and therefore must be treated with respect. Cutting short the lives of these nonhuman persons is morally and ethically wrong because it violates their intrinsic value and asserts that human interests are more important than nonhuman interests in the unnecessary act of killing for food.

Continuing to consume the flesh of nonhumans, even if the nonhuman does not die at the hands of the person eating it, does not constitute a morality hall pass. Purchasing meat promotes factory farming in which literally millions of nonhumans are murdered slaughtered each year. It is not necessary for a happy and healthy human life to violate the rights of nonhumans. The only argument in favor of meat consumption in modern America is that it tastes good. Pleasure is not enough to constitute moral rightness. A vegetarian diet promotes good health and allows nonhumans to live their lives in happiness alongside humans.

It is crucial that humans begin to eradicate their speciesist mentality and stop relying on anthropomorphic arguments in favor of vegetarianism. As a vegetarian, I support valuing nonhumans because we share this planet with them. As sentient beings, they are deserving of our consideration and as moral patients we owe them our compassion. Nonhumans need not be human to deserve our humanity.

Do you feel that the vegetarians in the class entered the course and looked at the various arguments as objectively as the meat eaters?

Response to Sarah

Sarah wonders if it is better for her to err on the side of caution when considering her dietary needs.

I think this is absolutely the best thing to do, especially if you believe that animals do indeed have the capacity to suffer, and it can be inferred from Sarah's blog that she does. I have a hard time understanding how people can admit to the suffering of animals and be abhorred by it and then go pick up a burger anyway. I guess this is partially because I do not feel all the social pressures from my friends and family to eat meat that several people in class say they deal with. If anything, when someone criticiszes my vegetarianism it makes my conviction stronger.

I think that we have seen too much evidence in this class not to AT LEAST question that consuming sentient animals is morally questionable, if not entirely wrong. So, then, I believe that if you find yourself questioning if you should consume animal flesh or not, particularly if you aren't completely swayed based on shaky scientific evidence, then the correct moral choice would be to err on the side of caution and make as many baby steps as you can possibly force yourself to take. I know, I know, it's hard, but I agree with what Todd said when he said that the choice to simply not go to McDonalds anymore or to choose pasta with sauce and no meat is not a particularly difficult choice and you may be saving a highly intelligent being from dying an unnecessary and painful death by erring on the side of caution.

My question is for those of you in the class taking baby steps: Do you think that you will ever actually be able to give up meat, to completely make that transition when you keep going back to it again and again in your baby step method?

Response to Mary

Mary talked about the movie The Island in her last blog post and then asked
"...will it ever get that bad? And what way of thinking can prevent it?"

I hope things never get to that point. However, I think that history has shown us time and time again the human beings are capable of horrible atrocities. I would hope that if science got so advanced that we could clone people to basically be walking organ farms that we would have also found cures for major diseases and maybe organ transplants will be less necessary. Of course, there will always be heart attacks and car accidents, so there will always be a need for organ transplants.

I think the best way to keep this from happening is to start valuing the worth of each individual equally. This would be a very difficult thing for human beings to accomplish. It seems to be in our nature, if we have one, to be social creatures. Part of that comes with learning to value those close to you more than you value yourself. I don't know about you, but I know that if my mother were dying and needed an organ transplant, I'm not sure if I'd care that it came from some clone I'd never met. I know that this is an unethical way of thinking and it needs to be eradicated. On a deeper level, I strongly believe that everyone is worthy of equal consideration because their interests are just as important as mine, including the cloned walking organ farm.

This leads me to wonder if we were ever be able to truly value the worth of every being, or at least human beings, equally. Do you think we could ever reach this point?

The Yuck Factor

It's time for me to sound off on how I feel about "the yuck factor" that we talked about in class today. I'm amazed that what I'm about to write failed to come up in class because I feel it's an extremely relevant example of why the yuck factor isn't enough to constitute why something is wrong. Yes, it might make us uncomfortable, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's intrinsically wrong. The examples given in the book as well as in class, pedophilia and incest, can I think be deemed as morally wrong, not just on the basis of the yuck factor, but of course in large part because we are made so uncomfortable by it.

There is an example that I am thinking of that does not seem to carry much of a yuck factor here but definitely has a lot of weight where I'm from--the Bible Belt. I am thinking of homosexuality. I personally have absolutely no yuck factor when it comes to this, but a solid majority of the people I know are evangelical Christians and their yuck factor for this is HUGE. Does that mean that it's wrong? No, of course not. The people who oppose it hold to that opinion because they say it's unnatural, another reason we gave for being uncomfortable with something. However there are a lot of things that exist in nature that are not good--war, disease, ect.

However, I think that the yuck factor has its place in the discussion of animal ethics. Frankly, I feel this way because I'd be willing to take any reason for the ethical treatment of nonhumans, even if it's something as faulty as the yuck factor.

My question for this blog is what do you base your moral opinions on more, your personal yuck factor or something else?

You know you want one...

When we were talking about glowing puppies, all that I could think of was this video...and how awesome it would be to have puppy sized elephants, strictly through evolution of course :].

Response to Shelby

Shelby wonders if we can use animals without abusing them...so do I, so here's my response.

I generally have a problem with the attitude that animals can be used because to me that perpetuates the attitude that animals are things rather than beings. That said, if we had never used animals in the first place our society would never have advanced in the way that it has. The use of animals in agriculture directly resulted to the growth of civilizations out of hunter-gatherer societies. I think at the very least we owe animals a great deal of respect, since we wouldn't be where we are today without their help.

Perhaps we should try to move toward the mindset that animals are usable persons and not objects that we control. If you think about it, even people are used. If nobody was made to do anything nothing would ever get done. Of course it's different with people because, for the most part, we have a choice in what we do or don't do. Even though we have more free will than animals, we do not have complete freedom of choice. If I did just what I wanted to do and nothing else I'd be at home laying on my couch reading for the rest of my life. I can consent to doing work, but that does not mean that I want to do it or even that it is always in my best interest. To answer the question, I do think that we can use animals without abusing them so long as we do not force them to do things that harm their well being and realize that they are living beings, not machines that can be treated without kindness. Gentle treatment of animals will go a long way as opposed to just having no useful relationship with animals for fear of violating their free will.

I'm now wondering how much weight we should give to an animal's preferences. Do we avoid certain practices such as using horses for carriage rides in the city because we can infer that they would rather be running in an open field somewhere or do we simply avoid practices of animal usage that clearly cause the animal unnecessary discomfort or harm?

More on the Native American Perspective.

Today in class some people talked about how the Native Americans view nature and their relationship to animals. Todd gave us a great insight on how the Native Americans hunted big game and how those animals represented the tribe as a people symbolically. While it was great to hear this information, I don't feel that a full representation was given.

Let me start off by saying that although I have personal experience with this, I am in no way an expert. I'm not a tribal elder and there are many stories that haven't heard and will never hear. That said, I'm a fairly large percentage Native American with my grandfather being the first generation in my family to move away from our reservation in Montana. So my knowledge on the subject is fractured, being that I only know about the plains tribes and really even only the Pikani perspective.

I'm sure you've probably heard of totem animals before. I grew up knowing them as spirit animals, but it's basically the same concept. Each person has a spirit animal (mine is the turtle, you may have seen my necklace) that may protect them or enlighten them in some way, mostly in dreams. My family never put much stock into dreams or visions, but everyone knew their spirit animal and what qualities they have. Usually, a person's personality mirrors the attributes of their totem. The relationship here between animal and person is very deep and meaningful. People often call upon their totem animals in times of distress. It's like having a guardian angel of sorts. Some spirit animals, like the bear, are more powerful than others. There are more dynamics to the human/totem relationship, but like I said, I'm not an expert and have very limited experience.

I think this begins to illustrate how deeply connected the Native Americans are to animals. This isn't to say that they don't eat meat because of this connection. My whole family eats meat. However, there is a certain sense of reciprocity that I don't think exists outside of the Native American community.

My question for this blog is, does your family, whatever background you are, have any stories or traditions relating to animals like that of the Native Americans?