a what?

Sorry for the lull in posts. Tracy has been getting away from it all in PE while the power cuts and the fact that I am at class again have prevented me from logging on. No dazzling insight today. But I did find out that the ethical theory I described a while ago does actually have a real name (I checked when my brother told me that it just was utilitarianism). It has the slightly less grand title of rule utilitarianism. The Oxford dictionary of Philosophy says so.

stupid liberals

I was just reading Oliver Kamm (a favorite blogger of mine) who is a fellow liberal and was impressive recently in his defense of free speech. In a recent post he said that his liberal credentials lead him to support fox hunting. Now liberalism is based on the premise that we should be able to do whatever we like so long as it does not harm others. It is not the first time that I have heard this liberal defense and I should not need to point out that fox hunters are trying to kill the foxes, not give them a little exercise. I suggest another visit to dictionary.com.

...

Further to my last serious post. Since some people oppose research into gender or IQ differences because of its supposed implications maybe I shouldn’t be so surprised at the generally backward attitude towards animals. The differences between humans and animals are pretty clear (if imprecisely understood) so these same people must think that that defends our treatment of animals. Until we understand that possible differences between humans are no grounds for discrimination (sometimes different treatment thought) the majority of people will not move on to animals.

claws of steel

Two nights ago I squashed Lucy’s tail (accidentally) under a chair. She responded incisively by mauling my foot. I was really concerned that I had done her some lasting damage, but she seems fine and has resumed regulation hand and feet mauling in the name of cuteness. My foot on the other hand will bear the scars of the incident for some time to come. So don’t be fooled by the cute little pictures. Don’t mess with this kitten.

the blank slate

I’ve been reading Steven Pinker’s “Blank Slate”. It is certainly very interesting although not quite what I expected. I thought I would be overwhelmed by new evidence based on clever scientific studies that used all the latest and best technology that money can buy. Maybe it’ll get there, I’m only half way, but it’s still interesting. Back in the 70’s Pinker had a front row seat to the controversy surrounding sociobiology (now know as evolutionary psychology). People were (and are) outraged that certain aspects of human behavior may be naturally evolved, this includes things like male violence, some gender roles and things like homosexuality. One fear is that that if men are naturally violent, that somehow legitimizes it. The other fear is that if things like intelligence are innate and if women or blacks are less intelligent, ten years of discrimination against those groups will have been justified. I’ve never heard a good reason for this jump but I can see how it may seem intuitive to some people (racists for example). It is nonsense though; if women -on average- make bad engineers, then they will naturally be underrepresented in that profession without the help of barriers (besides, if merit is the basis for discrimination then you can’t block talented people without violating your own argument).

Anyway, the point Pinker was making is that the human demand for equality does not depend on us being equal in some measurable sense because this would be vulnerable to refutation by the next scientific study. Equality for humans means equal consideration of interests not some factual equality among people. People know this of course, if a racist has a retarded child he does not conclude that it has no rights. Pinker doesn’t recognize the implications for animals; he even cites Singer once and mentions the quaint idea that some people think animals have interests. It seems he’d rather think up new experiments that involve stitching up ferret’s eyes or cutting them out completely. If human rights don’t depend on ability then why is it constantly invoked as a reason to ignore the interests of animals?

Lucy in a SA Cricketer's Cap

Lucy in a cap
Originally uploaded by Tracy Leigh.

As light cuteness-relief from all the serious debate, I thought I'd share another picture of gorgeous Lucy.

Soon she won't be able to fit into caps anymore!

Animals are Unconsciousness!

Several anti-animal rights defendents, rely on the argument that animals are ultimately "unconscious" to justify human use and abuse of animals. They believe animals are very sophisticated biological machines that are programmed to respond to stimuli. I find it strange that they can make this claim for animals, but not extend it to humans? Perhaps we are biological machines too?

To me, it seems that I am self-aware, conscious. I think and feel. How do I know that other humans do too since I cannot and never will be able to get into their heads to see and experience their thoughts and feelings? I could be the only conscious being in a highly complicated machine or dream scape? The fact is that we all infer that other human beings are like us (they think and feel similar feelings) by interpreting their behaviour in particular circumstances. I could assume that these are just complex ramifications of a biological machine, but I do not. It is not useful and is very counter-intuitive. Similarly, by watching and interacting with animals, we can also interpret their behaviour as reflection of their inner world and it certainly seems to be as real as ours.

Also their is the evidence of physiology and evolutionary biology. Many animals (like invertebrates) have commonalities in physiology. We can assume that physiological components that look the same and react the same have the same function. For example, a highly developed nervous system and pain receptors in the brain, indicate a propensity for animals and humans to experience pain. We also know that pain is very unpleasant and by judging animal's behaviour while experiencing pain, they also find it very unpleasant.

Language entitles you to moral status

I have finally started reading one of my four books from the library on animals and ethics. I chose "Taking Animals Seriously Mental Life and Moral Status" by David DeGrazia. I admittedly haven't read very far yet, but am already amazed at the assumptions of anti-animal rights defenders. R.G. Frey wrote in his book "Interests and Rights" that animals have no interests because they have no desires. They have no desires because they can't have beliefs. Belief is necessary for desires, because to desire something you have believe that it is missing and this belief must be stated as a sentence! Since animals don't think in sentences they can't have beliefs. Finally, because animals lack interests they have moral status.

So that's the argument. It's bizzare. To start at the beginning I don't believe that desires have to based on beliefs and that either of these need to verbalised in sentences. If I see an ice-cream and I desire it. This is more of a physical/emotional urge/sensation. If I am frustrated because I've been couped up in the house all week, I don't have to have a sentence for the fact that I just wish to break down the doors and run outside. Secondly, there are many, many things that can't or don't have to be verbalised through words. Language is just a tool for communication and expression. Any artist will know that we express ourselves through many means: music, art and dance, for example. My highschool music teacher, Mr De Beer wrote that "Music allows one to express, that which must be expressed but cannot be through words" (I may not have got the quote exactly right.)

Anyone who has has interacted with animals can see that animals have desires, from continuous meowing asking one for more food or eagre anticipation when one touches the leash. It seems that philosophers, so desparate to stick to some particular philsophical-ethical framework, allow themselves to come to ridiculous conclusions that are refuted by evidence. I think they should be more scientific about it. If it doesn't match reality (in any particular instance), then the framework doesn't work and needs to be adjusted or scrapped!

moral schmoral

As I said recently I am not a utilitarian. I also mentioned that there is astonishing difficulty to formulate a really coherent ethical framework (didn’t I? Well I find it weird; we all have such clear ideas of right and wrong, the greatest minds grapple with the problem without very great success. Read Simon Blackburn’s book, ‘Being Good’ for a summary).

So what am I? I am a contractarian utilitarian (cool hey!), and this is what that means: it means that a moral code should have the aim of the greatest happiness for the greatest number based on rules that may not be violated on utilitarian considerations. I will support my claim based on soccer. Millions of people enjoy watching and playing soccer; I suggest that the point of soccer is to make people happy, so I am interested in maximizing this happiness. The game is based on strict rules which a referee must enforce. Now imagine (if you can) a world cup match between Iceland and China, it seems clear to me that the general happiness will be best served by a Chinese win (the people who care most live in Iceland and China, and there are more Chinese), so should the ref, or maybe the Icelandic keeper tweak the game to ensure the Chinese win? I say no. Match fixing scandals happen, and when they do, people can be badly put off the sport and either withdraw support, or watch suspiciously looking for incriminating behavior. When this happens less people are made happy by the sport and rebuilding credibility and thus happiness level can take time. If it became accepted that the moral thing to do was to selectively fix games the sport would die, killing any happiness associated with it. This is why we want good honest refs and umpires. Sure, we should analyze rules and change the bad ones, but once the new rules are in they must be upheld and respected, and refs who don’t respect them must be dumped. Strictly applied rules do not entail dogmatism, if they are subject to revision. So even though the odd dodgy offside decision may increase happiness, the decision must still be condemned. That is the only way to protect the integrity of the sport and thus promote the utility it creates. Otherwise all games will end up like the Harlem Globetrotters (they seldom lose) or WWF.

So apply the rules of morality to the game of life, and you see where I stand. And yes I am aware that it may be possible to make ridiculous examples of it, but we have to live and we have to try.

more rambling Sing(er)ing

More about Peter Singer and utilitarianism: Utilitarianism is an ethical framework that determines the morality of an action by the effects that it has. The more an action promotes the general wellbeing the better it is morally. Now it’s pretty easy to construct scenarios where the moral utilitarian solution to a problem is intuitively hugely immoral. However other ethical frameworks don’t always fair much better when subjected to hypothetical scenarios.

Anyway, Peter Singer follows his ethical framework to some shocking conclusions. I don’t think shocking conclusions should count against him, in fact I think it is very important not to be afraid to argue shocking conclusions, they may not always seem shocking. Singer notes that philosophers often become the most sophisticated defenders of what we already believe in. That can make philosophers dangerous rather than enlightening if it helps men feel comfortable in their role as oppressors (of woman or black people etc). My favorite example of this kind of complacency happened around 200 years ago. Mary Wollstonecraft published her entirely sensible ‘A vindication of the rights of women’, few today would argue the basic point of the book but an eminent Cambridge philosopher replied with a sarcastic paper called ‘A vindication of the rights of brutes’. He did not trouble to engage with the arguments because they were so obviously absurd. We think thinkers like Singer to battle that kind of reckless complacency. Singer suggests narrowing the moral gap between human and non-human animals, some find this shocking because they think it suggests that we should treat humans like animals are treated. But note that Singer suggests that we not eat animals, not that we should start farming humans, so that is exactly the wrong way round.

So the moral is; don’t dismiss Singer, and as I plan to argue further, supporting animal rights does not depend on one being a utilitarian.

Here is an excellent debate on one of Singers shocking positions.

Singer

Peter Singer is a controversial figure. He is a utilitarian whereas I am not. Some may reject utilitarianism and thus reject Singers arguments without engaging with them. I advise against that, his arguments are powerful even if you don’t agree with his ethical framework. The conclusions of the animal rights movement does not depend on utilitarianism.

Singer debate

I’m going to try add a link!

I came across this debate the other day. Its between Peter Singer, the most famous proponent of animal rights (well philosopher at least), and Richard A. Posner, an American judge. Read it and form your own judgment. I just want to note a point in the debate where judge Posner make it clear that he is not on the same page a Singer at all. He opposes any laws making cages larger on the grounds that it would coerce farmers. Now I’m no fan of coercion but, what about the coercion of the animals!? He obviously thinks that animals can’t be coerced but does not argue for the conclusion. Here is what dictionary.com has to say on coercion “the act of compelling by force of authority”. How does this not apply to animals? This is Singers point, animals are important IN THEIR OWN RIGHT!

equal consideration

So far I have defended equal consideration for animals; another way of saying this is ‘all animals are equal’. This is not a statement that many people will agree with so it needs some fleshing out. I plan to write an essay about it for Tracy’s web page but I thought I’d just make a few comments here.

A few months ago I debated animal rights with a highly educated and intelligent person. At one point I mentioned animal rights absently, my opponent pounced on this and declared "animals don’t have rights, you could give them the right to vote but I don’t think they’d use it". Why does this seem a natural and devestating response? Why does talk of rights lead to talk of voting? Many people don’t have the right to vote, toddlers don’t, and neither do the severely mentally retarded. Do they have rights? Of course! They have the right to life for one, and several others. The rights we have vary according to our interests (not in the 'i'm interested in movies' sense). A baby has no interest in voting because he doesn't know what it is, but does have an interest eating and avoiding abuse.

Animals have different interests from ours, and I’m not sure how much we know about them beyond the fact that they have an interest in avoiding suffering. Accepting the principle of equal consideration is great, but until we have a better understanding of what animals interests are there is much room for disagreement about how we should treat them. I want to give an example that appears to favor human interests over animals but is in fact in line with equal consideration. I would argue that we should not euthanize brain dead humans unless they made it clear in better times that that is what they wanted. But I support the euthanasia of animals in similar circumstances. Why are the cases different? In a society that euthanizes people with advanced Alzheimer's disease without prior consent it might be a cause of considerable distress to people afraid of what will happen to them in later life. So the practice can cause real harm to humans while they are not brain dead, but not to animals, because they can’t understand the relevant concepts.

So all sorts of unequal treatment can be justified under equal consideration, but we still need to consider their interests. I think this is an area where real progress can be made. Discovering animals interests is scientific, so not as vulnerable to ideological bias and apologetic philosophy. So study animals (not by cutting them up), discover their interests, and then we can treat them more justly.

No response

What is the point of user query forms on corporate websites if they never reply?! I write this because I have used two so far with no response.

Firstly, I was interested in finding out more about the cow farming used to produce milk for Woolworths. Woolworths has a reputation of buying food from farmers that are organic, environment friendly, etc. This should also imply that the animals used for their products are also treated more humanely, which is why I have switched to Woolworths for my dairy products. But I realised that this is still an assumption, so I used their user form to ask them for more information. That was well over a month ago. At first I thought that perhaps they were gathering information for me, but it seems they are hoping that I'll go away.

Secondly, if you read my earlier blogs, you'll remember that I wrote to Ratanga Junction, through their website form, asking for more information about the treatment of the wild animals kept in their facilities. Again, absolutely no response.

What's the point? Perhaps they hope that we'll forget, while waiting for their reply. Though it may be frustrating, I mustn't quit now. I'll just have to get up some more energy to write a more official letter and send it to someone higher up!

Volunteering

Well I suppose it was a little predicable, volunteering was a little more mundane than I thought. No puppy’s died in my arms, we didn’t see or do anything much at all really. The lady who showed us around was very nice and obviously loves animals but she was also a bit mad. She kept forgetting what she had said before and violating the rules that she so diligently laid down for us. In the end we just fed some pellets to the dogs in the kennels. The aim is to prevent them from jumping up and barking incessantly, and just a little company, which of course they love (who wouldn't love getting a pellet and some attention from us?). So time not wasted, but I hope I can be a little more useful in the future. Some of the dogs did tug at the heart strings though. Some were just full of energy and were so pleased to get some attention, but others were scared of everything and others seemed a little dead to the world. One can’t tell what happened in the past, but for them the odds of being adopted seems pretty slim. So there is that, but I’m sure that some of the dogs will find homes, and I’m sure they will be thrilled, so there is hope, which is good.

late night ramble

Its 11:45 on Friday night, so I think we can excuse a little unfocused blogging. Anyway, I have to get up early tomorrow (7:30!) to volunteer at the SPCA for the first time. I’m a little anxious, partly because I am concerned that it will be unpleasant work, and partly because I hope I will be a good student. I really want to help the animals, many of whom have been so badly treated by us. In the back of our minds, we all know that there is a lot of suffering out there, and we need to tune most of out just to get on with our daily lives, I am concerned that I’ll be put off volunteering by getting to close to evidence of human nastiness. I am also optimistic though, I think that one can get used to many things, and I really do believe in the cause, so we’ll see…

When Tracy, Jenny and I went to the info session two weeks ago I wasn’t surprised to see them use a cute puppy to inspire us to help. It is very effective, and I think it is important for two reasons, firstly it illustrates the importance of empathy in our moral lives (it causes us to do crazy things like volunteer), secondly, it shows how naturally empathy comes to us with animals. In the past two years I have started reading a little philosophy (hence my radical views on animal rights!) and I was struck by the general consensus that it is not possible to ground ethics purely in reason. One can rationally opt out of the ethical game, just so long as you don’t demand ethical treatment from others. Morality comes from empathy, we simply are not indifferent to the fate of others. Animal lovers, and people who are vegetarian because they empathise with animals are not short of concern for animals, and I think that’s fantastic and should be encouraged, but it also highlights what I see as a problem with any movement for animal rights. Ethical treatment of animals shouldn’t be seen as do gooding by a few kind souls but the lack of doing bad by the many. We don’t think of people who are not racist as altruists! Empathy is important but it is just the beginning. Humans are shockingly prone to forgetting about the concerns of others. In genocide, people of an arbitrary ethnic group are killed just because they are part of that group, it usually takes some convincing before people will act in this way, but it happens tragically often. The majority of us forget animals. Most people will be shocked if they see a pet being abused but don’t flinch at eating an animal that they know must have been horrifically abused. If its wrong to beat your dog then it is wrong to break a pigs ribs in transit. People feel sorry for animals, but they don’t recognise the implications of that.

In my writing, I aim to provide an unsentimental case for animal rights, I believe that any thinking person must know that much of our treatment of animals is indefensible. We don’t rely on empathy and goodwill to prevent human rights abuses, we shouldn’t need it to protect animals.

Labrador puppies busted for smuggling cocaine

CNN reported today that Labrador puppies had been used to smuggle cocaine and heroine into the United States. These puppies were found on a Colombian farm, 6 of which had 3 kg packets of liquid heroin stitched into their stomachs. Unfortunately 3 of the puppies died after the removal of the packets.

Am I suprised? Sadly, not. Drug dealers who obviously don't care about the lives of humans, will certainly not care about animals. It's just another case where innocent animals suffer because of our greed and lack of compassion.

As for drug taking... The negative consequences of taking illegal drugs, extend way beyond just the life of the addict.

Lucy wrestles Chewy

Lucy & Chewy wrestling
Originally uploaded by Tracy Leigh.

Lucy launched herself into a vigorous wrestling match with Chewy, my toy doll. She was not intimidated by his floppy areas and big eyes.

Isn't she cute!

Caging animals for entertainment

On Saturday, Stuart and I visited Ratanga Junction in Cape Town. It was great fun, we rode all sorts of roller coasters, got totally wet and tried to smash into each other in bumper cars. We were entertained the whole day.

There was one thing that got to me though, the many wild animals kept in small enclosures to entertain the public. These animals included vultures, macaws, snakes, crocodiles and even Andean Condors, with a lifespan of 50 years! Well, there's a whole debate about whether wild animals should be kept zoos and enclosures at all. But I wish to deal with the actual condition of these holding cells. If animals are going to be kept for our amusement and education, surely their enclosures should be as natural and spacious as possible, affording the animals some chance of expressing some of his/her natural instincts? A huge python for example was enclosed in a cage where he would never be able to extend himself to his full length. The condors, prized for their ability to sore on winds, would not be able to fly accross their cage. And in general the cages were drab, with bare natural covering to add interest and cover. Personally, I don't believe this is acceptable and have written a letter to Ratanga Junction asking them to explain themselves. I 'd like to hear what you think about animals in zoos and enclosures.