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?

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.

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.

Practical Ethics: The Bottom Line

“There’s no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They’re all animals.”— Washingtonian magazine, 8/1/86

The above quote is from Ingrid Newkirk and i use it to introduce the topic of concentration for this entry because it think it summarises essentially the basis of the animal rights fight and justifiably so. No matter what distinction we give ourselves due to our evolution and what not, doesn't take away from the fact that we are all animals and the biologists (myself included) will attest to that; that's why we are in the animal kingdom of classification.
Mattew Silliman may have giving us the qualification of being active moral valuers; we have the ability to value and be valued in return and Tom Regan may have distinguished us with the credentials of being moral agents but when the dust settles, we are all animals and posses inherent values thus shouldn't be treated as some "means to ends"; to borrow Kant's terminology.
Peter Singer in his essay; " Practical Ethics" brings out a very interesting point when he questions why we can't use human beings of the same consciousness level as mice in researches and as food as we do to other animals. This may seem absurd to the average reader but we can nonetheless see the validity in his remarks! Take Regan's moral agency and moral patients principles for example, where he qualifies non-human animals, children and disabled( mental, social, physical) adults as moral patients. We see from these comparisons that children and infants as well as rabbits and mice are all valuable equally so why don't we use children or retarded people as test subjects? Why do we resent stem cell research ( potential humans used for research) and have no qualms with hundreds of mice or guinea pigs subjected to torture daily? Better yet, why do we resent the thought of eating human flesh (cannibalism) but celebrate our achievements with feasting tables filled with meat choices of numerous varieties except human that is ?

Moral Status: Agents,Patients and or Quasi-agents!

Tom Regan did a splendid job in identifying what Mattew Silliman once called " Moral Valuers" as "Subjects of a life" (SOAL), but he took it a step further as he further qualified SOALs as either being moral agents or moral patients. Moral agents according to Regan "have the ability amongst others to bring impartial moral principles to bear on the determination of what, all considered, morally ought to be done and, having made this determination, to freely choose or fail to choose to act as morality, as they conceive it, requires". In contrast, he defines moral patients as "those who lack the prerequisites that would enable them to control their own behavior in ways that would make them morally accountable for what they do. In other words, moral agents can do wrong whereas moral patients can't cause harm since they can't do what is wrong!
As Regan expatiates, moral agents include fully conscious mature humans while most non-human animals, children and or handicapped(mental, social or physical) adults classify as moral patients. Some non-human animals as we have come to learn from media exposure or personal experiences due to intensive training have moved a step up from being just moral patients evident in their prowess in acquiring and communicating in human language; no matter how limited it may be. This special group of patients can't be awarded moral agency just yet especially since these abilities are products of external factors much more than internal mental capacities and for such a new term t describe them; quasi-moral agents.
At the forefront of these classification scheme is animal rights activist Steve Sapontzis; author of "Morals, Reasons,and Animals". Quasi moral agency may seem as a very gigantic step from moral patiency but it just goes to show us how very much alike non-human animals are to children and i don't think any mature fully conscious moral agent out there will support labs testing shampoo products or new drugs and medications on 5 year olds.

The Morality of the Life-Boat Riddle.

Ever heard of the riddle " What do you do or who do u save when you have three people and a dog to put on a lifeboat that can only take three people (the dog counts as one person) at once?" Well as a kid, that riddle meant nothing more to me than just a riddle and as such i relied on my common sense to provide me an answer. Nonetheless, if placed in such a situation,most of us wouldn't hesitate to leave the dog out of the life-boat so as to save the three humans.
Not until a few days ago, i would have still applied "common sense" and saved the three people but now i think i know better! The answer to this riddle entails more than just common sense, it is a moral question; one which treads on the fine line between inherent values of humans and non-human animals alike, one which addresses the concerns of doing whats better for the few or for the many and most importantly one which talks of the principles of morality.
As Regan points out in his theory on animal ethics from the book " The Animals Ethics Reader", the inherent value of humans and non-humans or humans and humans or better yet non-human and non-humans alike shouldn't be evaluated as to which is or more importance or what not only when and only when they are in direct conflict with each other-like in the life boat scenario. According to Regan, the life of a dog and that of a human should be considered of equal importance based on their inherent values except when, one has to be sacrificed for the other to live and for times like these, he beckons we call on the miniride or worst-off principles.
Usually i present answers or my thought on my blogs but this time i think i will do it differently, i think i will ask questions and hopefully, you guys answer them or at least voice your opinions on the matter. Taking the miniride and worst off principles, could there be a situation in which a human's life could be of less importance? Is there a possibility where a dog's life due to the miniride or the worst off principle could be important enough to replace that of a human on the life-boat?

Pain, Suffering and Hope

Recently, the world of sports found itself involved in an age old battle; one involving the "euthanasia of animals" and like all such conflicts many people were saddened and others questioning. Babaro, a highly trained race-horse was euthanised sometime last month after successive surgeries to treat his broken leg failed. It was agreed upon by his owners, trainers and doctors that this was the right thing to do; the same people who a few months back were willing to see him recover and weren't ready to part ways with him, bringing me to my question of concern.
When do we call it a day and resolve to intentionally killing an animal to put it out of its "suffering"? This decision has plagued the medecine field for as long as i can remember and affects but human and non-human patients alike. The very definition of euthanasia (the intentional killing of a human and in some cases other animals) suggests cruelty but is it really cruel to "pull the plug" as they say on a family member diagnosed as being clinically dead (vegetative state) or killing a pet who may have been a victim or some tragic event.
When push comes to shove, this decision is a difficult one be it a human or non-human animal and for once i have no clue on what camp i will favor in this instance! We all want to be optimistic that some miracle might happen but when the dust settles, reality reares it "ugly" face and the truth becomes evident.