"Several countries have taken the lead in requiring a cost-benefit analysis that links animal pain (and other harms) to the scientific worthiness and social significance of the experiment's purpose... The concept of making a cost-benefit analysis sounds reasonable but is difficult to apply because the costs and benefits are incommensurable."
When an entrepreneur or regular man or woman embarks or plans on investing in any business of their choice, they do a cost -benefit analysis as they investigate to see how much they would spend (cost)- cost of production, payments of workers, making the products or services available to the public and how much they will make out of this endeavor; benefit-profit. We all do something similar on a daily basis as we make decisions after taken into consideration the most profitable course of action. The above quote from Barbara Orlans' essay National regulations on animal experiments tries to do the same. It suggests to the reader that some countries and individuals in an attempt to justify animal experimentation have sought out to develop a cost-benefit analysis to evaluate animal experimentation; is the benefit of these experiments to humans worth the cost of the animal lives or better yet, could these benefits trump the cost of animal lives so much so that animal experimentation could be morally defensible?
"... the cost and benefits are incommensurable", incommensurable is just a flashy way or saying you can't add, subtract, multiply or divide apples and oranges. The cost-benefit analysis as Orlans' points out may be reasonable or a great tool for clarifying ethical choices but as i pointed out earlier it is incommensurable; we can't evaluate both aspects of this analysis since they lack the same unit of measurement. A cost-benefit analysis could be done for a business inventive because we could evaluate costs and profit in money value (dollars) but they same can't be done for animal lives and human benefits. Apples and oranges to some extent are even commensurable as we can evaluate them based on one unit "fruit units" since they are both fruits and this goes again to show the difficulties of doing so for animal experimentation. Given all these, lets say we could generate a reasonable and reliable cost-benefit analysis of animal experimentation, how do we put value on the lives of these animal? It is relatively easy to evaluate the benefit end of this analysis because we are the beneficiaries but how do we put ourselves in the animals shoes when we can't even value them as ends to themselves rather means to an end-our ends!
Monday, April 16, 2007
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Ethics in Practice
To borrow a great passage from the essay titled; " multicriterial value incrementalism" by David Johnson and Matthew Silliman,
" No intelligent and sensitive person, we suspect would let her neighbor drown to avoid harming a frog or dog-but neither would she feel totally indifferent to the animal's sacrifice..."
Although this passage was aimed at explaining why a moral theory that addressed both "basic moral concern for a wide range of sentient life, and significant moral differences among those beings", i think it is vital for this entry because it helps me address the moral theory behind what is normally considered an act of common sense. If made to choose between saving the life of a cat and fellow human being, irrespective of our relationship to the partied involved, the obvious answer will be the human being but this decision has more to do with our moral obligation and societal expectations rather than a common sense decision. No let's examine the moral basis of this claim. Why is it morally defensible to save a child over a pet you love dearly, why is it morally acceptable to chose if forced to save your child over your pet or better yet some stranger over your beloved animal companion?
Children and domestic animals like cats and dogs on the basis of the egalitarian view are both sentient beings and should have an equal moral value thus treated equally. In the same light, animal rights activist and members of the general public will display their displeasure if you choose to save an animal over a human stranger irrespective of your relationships to either one -human or non-human! The decision to save the human being over the non-human animal prima facie (for their face value) is a great example of ethical values being rooted in our daily actions so much so that we do the morally right thing without much deliberation and pondering.
" No intelligent and sensitive person, we suspect would let her neighbor drown to avoid harming a frog or dog-but neither would she feel totally indifferent to the animal's sacrifice..."
Although this passage was aimed at explaining why a moral theory that addressed both "basic moral concern for a wide range of sentient life, and significant moral differences among those beings", i think it is vital for this entry because it helps me address the moral theory behind what is normally considered an act of common sense. If made to choose between saving the life of a cat and fellow human being, irrespective of our relationship to the partied involved, the obvious answer will be the human being but this decision has more to do with our moral obligation and societal expectations rather than a common sense decision. No let's examine the moral basis of this claim. Why is it morally defensible to save a child over a pet you love dearly, why is it morally acceptable to chose if forced to save your child over your pet or better yet some stranger over your beloved animal companion?
Children and domestic animals like cats and dogs on the basis of the egalitarian view are both sentient beings and should have an equal moral value thus treated equally. In the same light, animal rights activist and members of the general public will display their displeasure if you choose to save an animal over a human stranger irrespective of your relationships to either one -human or non-human! The decision to save the human being over the non-human animal prima facie (for their face value) is a great example of ethical values being rooted in our daily actions so much so that we do the morally right thing without much deliberation and pondering.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Animal Therapy?
Recent studies and observations at prisons for pedophiles, sex-offenders and other high-rate criminals reveal decrease in the violent nature and otherwise negative behavior in these criminals over time. Close observations at a maximum facility in Orlando reveal that the criminals exposed to or those who interacted with the farm animals around the prison grounds became subtle and a little more friendly than the rest of the inmates. This got prison officials and experts involved with behavioral trends as well as animal ethics thinking, do animals have a calming effect on these individuals, do these animal interactions simulate human interactions, is it a wild stretch to say animal interactions could lead to positive animal therapy?
As the documentary; To love or To kill: Man vs Animal points out, these criminals barely had any human interactions with the outside world as the spent most of their time with fellow inmates and prison guards and the like. This lets us to believe that their interactions with the farm animals they had to feed filled the void of human relationships and obviously it worked for both parties since the inmates became a lot more calm and subtle behavior wise. Animal therapy or anything in that light may sound like a far stretch, but is it really? Why do we get pets, why do we love our pets and get attached to them the way we do? As we learn from the documentary, people are far more trusting of animals as the employ them to be pets and aids around the house rather than hire humans! Handicap people would employ the help of monkey, dogs or some other well trained animal rather than a human being. The same goes to people who just get pets for the companionship. Some people would whole-heartedly admit to the fact that in their busy lives, human-human relationships are hard to build let alone sustain thus resort to animal-human relationships with pets who soon become a part of our lives and more than just a pet.
This goes to show us how much more valuable animals are or could be once we realize this inherent value. This is a slippery slope as i dare say that they are valuable but do not suggest that we use them or continue to use them to further our own agendas. Animals are more than just sources of hide for leather products, food or laboratory test subjects. The world will be a better place if we realized that animals are passive moral valuers whose subject of a life criterion gives them inherent value of their own thus shouldn't be used as mere receptacles or an ends to a means but as passive moral valuers who deserve to be treated with humanely with respect and justice.
As the documentary; To love or To kill: Man vs Animal points out, these criminals barely had any human interactions with the outside world as the spent most of their time with fellow inmates and prison guards and the like. This lets us to believe that their interactions with the farm animals they had to feed filled the void of human relationships and obviously it worked for both parties since the inmates became a lot more calm and subtle behavior wise. Animal therapy or anything in that light may sound like a far stretch, but is it really? Why do we get pets, why do we love our pets and get attached to them the way we do? As we learn from the documentary, people are far more trusting of animals as the employ them to be pets and aids around the house rather than hire humans! Handicap people would employ the help of monkey, dogs or some other well trained animal rather than a human being. The same goes to people who just get pets for the companionship. Some people would whole-heartedly admit to the fact that in their busy lives, human-human relationships are hard to build let alone sustain thus resort to animal-human relationships with pets who soon become a part of our lives and more than just a pet.
This goes to show us how much more valuable animals are or could be once we realize this inherent value. This is a slippery slope as i dare say that they are valuable but do not suggest that we use them or continue to use them to further our own agendas. Animals are more than just sources of hide for leather products, food or laboratory test subjects. The world will be a better place if we realized that animals are passive moral valuers whose subject of a life criterion gives them inherent value of their own thus shouldn't be used as mere receptacles or an ends to a means but as passive moral valuers who deserve to be treated with humanely with respect and justice.
The Price of Freedom
The killing of animals have been justified or at least attempts at this justifications have been made based on our needs to test products on them, need for animal proteins and other nutrients from animal meat and produce etc. However, we have taken this killings to an extreme as animal martyrs have been linked to political holidays like labor day and so forth! In Pennsylvania, labor day is celebrated by killing hundreds of pigeons as people take turns shooting pigeons with guns. Also, we have canned hunting; hunting of deers and other wildlife in fenced in areas sweeping the nation as a favorite pastime for locations proximal to forests or some wildlife.
Some experts explain that these activities like pigeon shootings on labor day or canned hunting every other weekend or so are taking a life of their own and they are result of our freedom. Our freedom as Americans and humans to bear arm and be able to hunt what and sometimes when we want is responsible for this animal brutality.
Holiday celebrations aren't the only celebrations that require animal torture nowadays as killing in the name of religion has been a dominant practice since Adam and Eve first walked the planet. Killing animals as offerings to some higher spirit, as a symbolism for some feast like the break of the past period or in remembrance of some Saint are just a few examples of killing in the name of religion. The Andalusian and most of Spain celebrate certain Christian Saints feast days by torturing bulls,the bulls is stuck with darts and spears as it runs through the town making its way to the church where it is later on killed.
Whether as a celebration of religion or our freedom like through holidays like labor day or whatever, putting animals through such torture is sadistic and cruel!!!!!!!!!!!
Some experts explain that these activities like pigeon shootings on labor day or canned hunting every other weekend or so are taking a life of their own and they are result of our freedom. Our freedom as Americans and humans to bear arm and be able to hunt what and sometimes when we want is responsible for this animal brutality.
Holiday celebrations aren't the only celebrations that require animal torture nowadays as killing in the name of religion has been a dominant practice since Adam and Eve first walked the planet. Killing animals as offerings to some higher spirit, as a symbolism for some feast like the break of the past period or in remembrance of some Saint are just a few examples of killing in the name of religion. The Andalusian and most of Spain celebrate certain Christian Saints feast days by torturing bulls,the bulls is stuck with darts and spears as it runs through the town making its way to the church where it is later on killed.
Whether as a celebration of religion or our freedom like through holidays like labor day or whatever, putting animals through such torture is sadistic and cruel!!!!!!!!!!!
Sunday, March 25, 2007
The Benjamin Franklin Objection: When Reality Clashes with Theory
In his article 'practical ethics', Peter Singer points out one of the famous critics of animal ethics point of view when it comes to eating animals and the sorts. According to Peter Singer, Benjamin Franklin was a vegetarian who denounced his way or life and decided to start consuming animal produce including meats when he saw his friends cut open a fish to fry just to find a smaller fish within its stomach and in his own words; "Well, if you eat one another, I don't see why we may not eat you" and from then started consuming animal flesh and other produce. Applying Regan's reasoning of moral agency and patiency, we see why Benjamin Franklin's objection is invalid here because as moral agents, humans are held accountable for the morality of the actions and the same can't be said for animals like the fish he mentioned in his autobiography since they are moral patients. Peter Singer also uses a similar train of thought to discredit Benjamin Franklin's point in the aforementioned story of the fish when he term humans "reasonable creatures" giving us the ability to ponder upon the implications of our action before we act.
The response to Benjamin Franklin's point isn't the topic of conversation for this entry but i brought it up because it brings out a crucial point in implementing the theories of animal ethics. As Paxton George stipulated to earlier as to how vegetarian diets couldn't be realistic for women, children and the elderly, i think Benjamin Franklin does the same here as he points out how people have to deal with the uncommon and not-so-natural (for lack of a better word) form of eating. I term vegetarianism a not so natural form of dieting because it proposes a idea that is new, one which contradicts the natural food chain respected by most ecosystems. Benjamin Franklin points out this difficulty in his story of fish eating another fish and then decides to start eating meat too saying "...if they could eat one another, why shouldn't we". He may have sounded ad-hoc or lets say mundane in his argument but suggesting of a theory this sorts that takes away from what we have grown accustomed to, could be a tricky switch.
This situation brings me to my present dilemma, how do we care for animals, treat them with respect and all that and still eat meet or use products that where made from animal hide or even worse through animal testing and research? Is that hypocritical?
The response to Benjamin Franklin's point isn't the topic of conversation for this entry but i brought it up because it brings out a crucial point in implementing the theories of animal ethics. As Paxton George stipulated to earlier as to how vegetarian diets couldn't be realistic for women, children and the elderly, i think Benjamin Franklin does the same here as he points out how people have to deal with the uncommon and not-so-natural (for lack of a better word) form of eating. I term vegetarianism a not so natural form of dieting because it proposes a idea that is new, one which contradicts the natural food chain respected by most ecosystems. Benjamin Franklin points out this difficulty in his story of fish eating another fish and then decides to start eating meat too saying "...if they could eat one another, why shouldn't we". He may have sounded ad-hoc or lets say mundane in his argument but suggesting of a theory this sorts that takes away from what we have grown accustomed to, could be a tricky switch.
This situation brings me to my present dilemma, how do we care for animals, treat them with respect and all that and still eat meet or use products that where made from animal hide or even worse through animal testing and research? Is that hypocritical?
Diet Discrepancies: A Response to Paxton George
A publication by Animal Agriculture Alliance recently addressed the supposed myth that " a vegetarian diet is healthier than a diet that includes meat, milk and eggs" but whether or not this is a myth or not is not a topic for this blog and we leave it at that. Nonetheless, this dispute of vegetarian diets over diets of animal produce and vice versa has plagued animal ethicist over the years especially when they propose a meat free diet of any source as a universal concept to be adopted by everyone irrespective of age, sex, race or creed.
Kathryn Paxton George addresses one of the major criticisms of the proposed universal vegetarian diet in her book " A feminist Critique of Ethical Vegetarianism" as she addresses the difficulties women face maintaining a vegetarian diet amongst other health issues it may pose. Kathryn points out how the proposed norm of vegetarianism is a "male physiological norm that discriminates against females, children and the elderly". She points out that women have to face the pressures of eating alone, eating with others and preparing food for families which could be coupled with the extra burden put on women to diet on a regular basis as well as expecting mothers who have to account for the nutrition of the growing fetus within her.
She also points out that a vegetarian diet might not be realistic for growing kids who require the nutrients from animal produce for proper growth and physical development. The same argument is made for the elderly who calcium and other essential animal derived nutrients for their health.
To this dilemma, Paxton George suggests a semi vegetarian diet which in her words; " [calls] for a reduction in animal cruelty, improve the conditions under which animals are raised, to encourage gratitude for their association with us, and to recognize their membership in a community with us. We should not eat them wastefully but only in a portion that balances the needs of family members....".
I think this idea of semi vegetarianism is definitely realistic and it atones for the nutritional needs of all people irrespective of their gender and or age and although it isn't necessarily the best solution to the treatment of animals, it is definitely a step in the right direction; consideration of animals vital parts of our community.
Kathryn Paxton George addresses one of the major criticisms of the proposed universal vegetarian diet in her book " A feminist Critique of Ethical Vegetarianism" as she addresses the difficulties women face maintaining a vegetarian diet amongst other health issues it may pose. Kathryn points out how the proposed norm of vegetarianism is a "male physiological norm that discriminates against females, children and the elderly". She points out that women have to face the pressures of eating alone, eating with others and preparing food for families which could be coupled with the extra burden put on women to diet on a regular basis as well as expecting mothers who have to account for the nutrition of the growing fetus within her.
She also points out that a vegetarian diet might not be realistic for growing kids who require the nutrients from animal produce for proper growth and physical development. The same argument is made for the elderly who calcium and other essential animal derived nutrients for their health.
To this dilemma, Paxton George suggests a semi vegetarian diet which in her words; " [calls] for a reduction in animal cruelty, improve the conditions under which animals are raised, to encourage gratitude for their association with us, and to recognize their membership in a community with us. We should not eat them wastefully but only in a portion that balances the needs of family members....".
I think this idea of semi vegetarianism is definitely realistic and it atones for the nutritional needs of all people irrespective of their gender and or age and although it isn't necessarily the best solution to the treatment of animals, it is definitely a step in the right direction; consideration of animals vital parts of our community.
Multifactorial Theory of Animal Ethics: An Eclectic Theoritical Orientation
Over the last few months as i grew accustomed to the theories and arguments set forth by animal ethicist and other concerned individuals, i realized that they all had one thing in common; they propose a single reason origin for the value of animals and consequentially the claim for their equal treatment. Be it the subject of a life criteria introduced by Tom Regan, the hypotheses of active or passive moral valuers by Mathew Silliman or better yet, the concept of emotions are stipulated by Josephine Donovan, they all argue to some degree that those independent concepts are primarily the sole origins for the moral value of animals and those why we should treat them with respect and justice. This got me thinking, why should we limit a concept of such gravity to one or two well supported concepts? Wouldn't it be better that we maintained an eclectic theoretical orientation school of thought like the one adopted by psychologists engaged in theories of human development?
This concept of mutifactorialism as applied to animal ethics is to my suggestion a much more valid argument for the value of animals because it proposes the concepts of subject of a life, moral valuers, emotions (love),moral agency or patiency and even "ends in themselves and not means to an ends" (Immanuel Kant) collectively as the source of animal value rather than either one or the other independently. Animal value as a product of this multifactorial theory is difficult to refute because of the collective strengths of the independent theories arguing as one.
This concept of mutifactorialism as applied to animal ethics is to my suggestion a much more valid argument for the value of animals because it proposes the concepts of subject of a life, moral valuers, emotions (love),moral agency or patiency and even "ends in themselves and not means to an ends" (Immanuel Kant) collectively as the source of animal value rather than either one or the other independently. Animal value as a product of this multifactorial theory is difficult to refute because of the collective strengths of the independent theories arguing as one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
