Following up on the movie, my classmates expressed their feelings of disgust towards the documentary we watched on Friday. I was expecting that we were going to watch the rest of the documentary, but we did not. I believe that we got more out of our conversation about the documentary than we would have if we watched the rest.
One issue that many of my classmates had a problem with was torturing animals in the name of religion. Even people who had no religious affiliation saw the problem behind this. Animals should not be killed in the name of religion. Hannah stated that in the Bible, animals were used as a sacrifice. Should this still apply to religion today? I believe it should not because we live in a different time. According to today's society, it would be wrong. This frustrated some of my classmates and I even more.
Another issue we had with the movie was seeing the "canned hunting." Nicole brought the point up about how much more suffering animals are faced with through canned hunting. By "trapping" the animals into a certain area, they have no chance of surviving. I believe this is wrong because animals should have the right to escape their killers. Also, canned hunting ruins the purposes of killing. Instead of killing for food, canned hunters are killing for a trophy. Animals should not be killed and torture for the sake of the trophy. It morally devalues them and is wrong.
Overall, I believe everyone learned a lot from this discussion. We all realized how animal cruelty and torture integrate with one another. Maybe we will discuss issues like these further when we discuss torture.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Monday, October 15, 2007
Torture
Torture is not a black and white issue. It depends on the scenarios on whether it can be justifiable or not.
I believe that torture is not justifiable in the means of terrorist torturing other people. It is inhumane and does not serve a person to human nature as a whole. It is very extreme and sometimes worse than murdering people. In order to physically torture someone for the fun of it is very sickening. Torturing people in this kind of way has no purpose other than trying to control someone. Controlling someone in this manner is not right; it is some sick pleasure people have that I do not quite understand. However, torture can be justified to help save human beings.
Torture is useful in the sense of torturing terrorists to find where a bomb is which is also known as the "ticking bomb" scenario. I believe that this is right because it has a definitive purpose--to try and help save the lives of thousands who could be killed by the bomb. Torturing in this way is preventing something worse to happen. In this case, the less evil of two wrongs should prevail. Torturing in a justifiable way is used as a last means of self defense; it is the last way to prevent something wrong from happening. In cases such as these, I believe torture is justifiable.
A quote from the article that helps prove my argument is, "In particular, it is difficult to see how torturing (but not killing) the guilty terrorist and saving the lives of thousands could be morally worse than refraining from torturing him and allowing him to murder thousands--torturing the terrorist is a temporary infringement of his autonomy, whereas his detonating of the nuclear device is a permanent violation of the autonomy of thousands." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 14).
The quote above proves my point exactly. Temporary pain is better than everlasting permament pain which does not only hurt the victims but their families as well.
That is my view on torture.
I believe that torture is not justifiable in the means of terrorist torturing other people. It is inhumane and does not serve a person to human nature as a whole. It is very extreme and sometimes worse than murdering people. In order to physically torture someone for the fun of it is very sickening. Torturing people in this kind of way has no purpose other than trying to control someone. Controlling someone in this manner is not right; it is some sick pleasure people have that I do not quite understand. However, torture can be justified to help save human beings.
Torture is useful in the sense of torturing terrorists to find where a bomb is which is also known as the "ticking bomb" scenario. I believe that this is right because it has a definitive purpose--to try and help save the lives of thousands who could be killed by the bomb. Torturing in this way is preventing something worse to happen. In this case, the less evil of two wrongs should prevail. Torturing in a justifiable way is used as a last means of self defense; it is the last way to prevent something wrong from happening. In cases such as these, I believe torture is justifiable.
A quote from the article that helps prove my argument is, "In particular, it is difficult to see how torturing (but not killing) the guilty terrorist and saving the lives of thousands could be morally worse than refraining from torturing him and allowing him to murder thousands--torturing the terrorist is a temporary infringement of his autonomy, whereas his detonating of the nuclear device is a permanent violation of the autonomy of thousands." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 14).
The quote above proves my point exactly. Temporary pain is better than everlasting permament pain which does not only hurt the victims but their families as well.
That is my view on torture.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
To Love or To Kill: Man vs. Animal
Watching the documentary, "To Love or To Kill: Man vs. Animal" left me feeling sick to my stomach after seeing how animals are treated. By seeing this movie, it showed me that Americans are not the ones that are harming animals the most.
For example, the Spanish are extremely cruel to animals. Torturing bulls and throwing other animals out of windows is extreme. The documentary reasoned this type of torture and killing through religion. Why would a culture feel the need to kill another living creature that their God created? There are other ways to show adoration towards a God and celebrate religious holidays.
During the part of the movie where cats were being decapitated was when I was the most disgusted. Why would household animals be killed as a source of food? This showed me that the moral status of household pets equals the same of a farm animal's in countries such as China. It opened my eyes to a different culture's point of view of animals. However, there was some good qualities to this documentary.
Seeing animals being used for therapy with disabled human beings or prisoners showed the happier side of the relationship between man and animals. It showed me how the United States still respects animals to some degree and uses them for meaningful purposes. Luckily, where we live animals are being used to help others and not as a source of food/sacrifice.
Also, when the Rabbi stated we were inconsistent with killing cows as a source of food but not cats, I felt disgusted. Although I agree with him to an extent, I do not believe it justifies what other cultures are doing. I still believe it is wrong to kill a cat as a source of food and do not care if I am a hypocrite by doing this.
Watching this movie proved to me that one's culture helps determine the moral status of animals. What is "right" to one culture is "wrong" to another. Like Betsy, Liz, and Nicole, I would prefer not to finish watching this documentary. Even though it is useful to an extent,
I believe it is more harmful. Seeing my other fellow classmates and me closing our eyes and turning away from the TV showed how much we did not want to see more of it. I hope that I can actually sit and watch the rest of the movie without shutting my eyes.
For example, the Spanish are extremely cruel to animals. Torturing bulls and throwing other animals out of windows is extreme. The documentary reasoned this type of torture and killing through religion. Why would a culture feel the need to kill another living creature that their God created? There are other ways to show adoration towards a God and celebrate religious holidays.
During the part of the movie where cats were being decapitated was when I was the most disgusted. Why would household animals be killed as a source of food? This showed me that the moral status of household pets equals the same of a farm animal's in countries such as China. It opened my eyes to a different culture's point of view of animals. However, there was some good qualities to this documentary.
Seeing animals being used for therapy with disabled human beings or prisoners showed the happier side of the relationship between man and animals. It showed me how the United States still respects animals to some degree and uses them for meaningful purposes. Luckily, where we live animals are being used to help others and not as a source of food/sacrifice.
Also, when the Rabbi stated we were inconsistent with killing cows as a source of food but not cats, I felt disgusted. Although I agree with him to an extent, I do not believe it justifies what other cultures are doing. I still believe it is wrong to kill a cat as a source of food and do not care if I am a hypocrite by doing this.
Watching this movie proved to me that one's culture helps determine the moral status of animals. What is "right" to one culture is "wrong" to another. Like Betsy, Liz, and Nicole, I would prefer not to finish watching this documentary. Even though it is useful to an extent,
I believe it is more harmful. Seeing my other fellow classmates and me closing our eyes and turning away from the TV showed how much we did not want to see more of it. I hope that I can actually sit and watch the rest of the movie without shutting my eyes.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Value of Animals
Does each animal have its own sentimental and moral value to us? This is what we discussed on Friday. Mainly we discussed this between cows and horses. We have no problem killing cows as a source of food, yet it is a problem with horses. Is an animal's usefullness to us that important? Is it worth killing a cow for food and saving the horse as a mean of transportation? Questions like this kept running through my mind during this discussion.
I agree to it to some extent. Yes cows are very important food source for humans. However, I do not believe they should hold a lesser moral value than horses. I believe that each animal is uniquely important to us, and we should treat it as such. Whether they are a means of food or a means of transportation, they are equally important to us. Although some animals should have lower moral values.
Animals such as ants and porcupines should have a lower moral value. They are not as useful to as cows and horses are. They are just animals that live on the planet. Does this mean they are morally useless? No, I do not think that. I think that they do have a purpose on this planet, but I do not know what that is. This topic could be discussed forever. Hopefully, we will have a good conclusion to this topic on Wednesday.
I agree to it to some extent. Yes cows are very important food source for humans. However, I do not believe they should hold a lesser moral value than horses. I believe that each animal is uniquely important to us, and we should treat it as such. Whether they are a means of food or a means of transportation, they are equally important to us. Although some animals should have lower moral values.
Animals such as ants and porcupines should have a lower moral value. They are not as useful to as cows and horses are. They are just animals that live on the planet. Does this mean they are morally useless? No, I do not think that. I think that they do have a purpose on this planet, but I do not know what that is. This topic could be discussed forever. Hopefully, we will have a good conclusion to this topic on Wednesday.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Moral Agents vs. Moral Patients
Discussing moral agents and moral patients is crucial to the discussion about the moral behavior of non humans. Moral agents are the ones who are on the giving and receiving end; they can dish up actions that count morally. They are in a sense the "powerful" ones. On the other hand, moral agents do not have power at all. They are on the receiving ends of things. Moral patients are infants because they act upon what they see. Infants do not know better; therefore, if they do something morally incorrect they cannot be punished for this. This made me wonder if animals can be punished for their actions too. I thought of this particularly when we were discussing children being on trial for murder.
Murder is a serious offense and people should have to deal with the consequences for their actions. However, what is the age that human beings know how wrong murder is. Should this be age be the same for everyone or should it be different for everyone? This becomes an issue when teenagers murder people and are charged as adults. Should they truly be charged as adults or as children? What should this moral behavior be based upon. Should it be based on their brain or psychological state of mind? Similarly, I wonder if dogs should be killed for their murderous actions.
Dogs, especially pit bulls, attack on another and are sometimes put to sleep because of it. Should this occur? Are they fully responsible for their moral behavior? Questions like these kept "popping" into my mind when discussing moral patients. Should the owners be punished more or equally to the dogs?
I am enjoying this discussion more on a daily basis and cannot wait to talk about it tomorrow.
Murder is a serious offense and people should have to deal with the consequences for their actions. However, what is the age that human beings know how wrong murder is. Should this be age be the same for everyone or should it be different for everyone? This becomes an issue when teenagers murder people and are charged as adults. Should they truly be charged as adults or as children? What should this moral behavior be based upon. Should it be based on their brain or psychological state of mind? Similarly, I wonder if dogs should be killed for their murderous actions.
Dogs, especially pit bulls, attack on another and are sometimes put to sleep because of it. Should this occur? Are they fully responsible for their moral behavior? Questions like these kept "popping" into my mind when discussing moral patients. Should the owners be punished more or equally to the dogs?
I am enjoying this discussion more on a daily basis and cannot wait to talk about it tomorrow.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Reflections on Q&A 4 Dicussion Day 1
Do animals have the same moral status capabilities as humans? This question was the foundation of the ongoing discussion in class. I thought it was interesting on how two people had two completely different views on the same incidents. For example, Betsy brought up how animals do have moral status because of the emotions they feel when their fellow companion passes away. Is it just longing for what was the "norm" for them or does it directly correspond with their moral behavior? I believe it is their intuition that helps the animals realize that something is missing and that something could possibly be wrong.
Another example Betsy used was the stories of dogs rescuing and saving their owners' lives. Is this affected by their moral status? Once again, I believe it is not. I believe it is more of an intution that helps the animals realize that something is wrong with their owners and that they must do something to save and protect their owners.
I came to these conclusions through the class discussing the levels of moral behavior: high moral moral behavior, medium moral behavior, and normal moral behavior. Yes I believe that animals do have a moral sense to an extent. I believe the only reason they have this is because of their surroundings. Their owners and other people around them help them realize what is right and what is wrong. They do not decipher this on their own. This is why I believe nonhumans only have the normal moral behavior letter. It does not come from their mind; rather, it comes from the minds that surround them.
Are trained service dogs the same way? Yes, I believe they are. I know that they are have more knowledge that shapes their moral behavior, but it is not knowledge from their brain. Rather, I believe it is knowledge that comes from their trainers. I believe that moral status is something a species is given rather than them being able to rise in the moral status hierachy. Yes, their moral status knowledge can improve but it does not change their status. Moral status is based on what we think is right and wrong from the beginning.
I look forward to discussing this more tomorrow.
Another example Betsy used was the stories of dogs rescuing and saving their owners' lives. Is this affected by their moral status? Once again, I believe it is not. I believe it is more of an intution that helps the animals realize that something is wrong with their owners and that they must do something to save and protect their owners.
I came to these conclusions through the class discussing the levels of moral behavior: high moral moral behavior, medium moral behavior, and normal moral behavior. Yes I believe that animals do have a moral sense to an extent. I believe the only reason they have this is because of their surroundings. Their owners and other people around them help them realize what is right and what is wrong. They do not decipher this on their own. This is why I believe nonhumans only have the normal moral behavior letter. It does not come from their mind; rather, it comes from the minds that surround them.
Are trained service dogs the same way? Yes, I believe they are. I know that they are have more knowledge that shapes their moral behavior, but it is not knowledge from their brain. Rather, I believe it is knowledge that comes from their trainers. I believe that moral status is something a species is given rather than them being able to rise in the moral status hierachy. Yes, their moral status knowledge can improve but it does not change their status. Moral status is based on what we think is right and wrong from the beginning.
I look forward to discussing this more tomorrow.
Thoughts on "Science, Ethics, and Moral Status"
Even though we began the discussion on this article yesterday, I feel that it is important to reflect about the reading itself before reflecting on the class discussion. Harlan B. Miller's Science, Ethics, and Moral Status discusses two important issues: ethics itself and whether non humans, animals, have a moral status or not. Miller's setup of this essay allows readers to have an introduction to ethics before discussing the question: at what level do non humans have a moral status.
Through reading this article, I realized that animals do have a moral status but only to an extent. Yes, animals have certain characteristics of one who has a moral status, but they are not as complex as the characteristics that humans have. Two important terms that need to be discussed when mentioning this are moral agent and moral patients. Humans are moral agents; they are able to decipher on their own what is right and what is wrong. However, non humans are moral patients; they need moral agents to help them decipher what is right and wrong. There perception of right and wrong is greatly influenced by their moral agents. Another important topic that must be discussed is the groups that living things fit into.
Miller uses three groups: Group A, Group B, and Group C to show the capabilities of each group's moral status. Group A is classified as the moral agents. They are able to have a moral sense of the world. From knowing this category, it shows me that they are the "geniuses" of the moral status spectrum; they have the best understanding of what moral status is. Group B consists of the moral patients--the non humans. They are the ones that cannot think of what is right and wrong on their own. Lastly, Group C has no moral abilities. They consists of cultures, laws, etc.
Through knowing all of this, it makes it clear in my mind that non humans do not have much power when it comes to moral status. They are being controlled by the humans around them. Their owners teach them what is right and wrong by continually asking them to do a task and through getting rewards.
I look forward to discussing this tomorrow more in depth. This topic intrigues me more than I thought it would and will open my eyes to a new moral view.
Through reading this article, I realized that animals do have a moral status but only to an extent. Yes, animals have certain characteristics of one who has a moral status, but they are not as complex as the characteristics that humans have. Two important terms that need to be discussed when mentioning this are moral agent and moral patients. Humans are moral agents; they are able to decipher on their own what is right and what is wrong. However, non humans are moral patients; they need moral agents to help them decipher what is right and wrong. There perception of right and wrong is greatly influenced by their moral agents. Another important topic that must be discussed is the groups that living things fit into.
Miller uses three groups: Group A, Group B, and Group C to show the capabilities of each group's moral status. Group A is classified as the moral agents. They are able to have a moral sense of the world. From knowing this category, it shows me that they are the "geniuses" of the moral status spectrum; they have the best understanding of what moral status is. Group B consists of the moral patients--the non humans. They are the ones that cannot think of what is right and wrong on their own. Lastly, Group C has no moral abilities. They consists of cultures, laws, etc.
Through knowing all of this, it makes it clear in my mind that non humans do not have much power when it comes to moral status. They are being controlled by the humans around them. Their owners teach them what is right and wrong by continually asking them to do a task and through getting rewards.
I look forward to discussing this tomorrow more in depth. This topic intrigues me more than I thought it would and will open my eyes to a new moral view.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)