Snakes, Snakes, Snakes

In response to Jenny Beers's question, "What is an animal you can't stand? Do some research and see how valuable they actually are, still feel the same way?"...

     If there is one animal I cannot stand, it is definitely a snake. First of all, I will admit that they make me uneasy. Second, what use do they really have to the ecosystem? Well, taking Jenny's suggestion I did some research, and this is what I discovered. By eating other animals, they help farmers keep the rodent population in check so that their crops do not get ruined. They essentially ensure that farmers do not have to use harmful pesticides.  Also, snake venom can be used to make anti-venom and can even aid in treating certain diseases.
     So, I have to admit now that snakes are not just useless and frightening. But, why is it that so many humans fear them? For one thing, Satan and other evil entities are often depicted as snakes in religious texts, but this cannot be the only explanation. Is a fear of snakes perhaps part of our nature? Upon doing some more research, I found an article that explained an experiment in which a fake snake was placed in a cage of monkeys, and they reacted in much the same way humans do - got very scared. So, does our fear trace back to a time when we were less evolved primates? For a long time snakes have been predators to primates, and in the article it asserts that perhaps we have the relatively good eyesight we do because we have adapted to spot snakes in the wilderness. However, I am not quite sure if I believe these claims. I think that it is in our nature to fear them, but perhaps it just has something to do with how they look (i.e. slithery, fangs).  What are some things that you believe are in our nature to fear?

This is the article I was talking about: http://www.livescience.com/5468-ll-fear-snakes.html 

A Stuffed Animal By Any Other Name....

     The other night when I was doing homework a thought occurred to me - it is a really interesting phenomenon when children name their stuffed animals and other inanimate objects. I have even noticed people doing it here at school, for in my group of friends, Devon has named her plant Phyll, Katherine has a phone she calls Lucifer, and Ashley has a stuffed hippopotamus named Samantha. Then I started to wonder, do people confer moral status onto objects when they name them? Essentially, people recognize that the things are unconscious beings, but they still attempt to make them seem "more human" by giving them a name. But, why do people do this? In the case of children, perhaps they do it so they feel less lonley. For if you think about it, children often play with their stuffed animals and sleep with many of them at night. This does not seem to explain why adults do it though. Perhaps for them it is a mechanism for making the world a less scary place. But, whatever the case may be, while they might be assigning a higher moral status than what should be given, I do not think it is negative for anyone to do it. After all, the world can be rather intimidating, and if naming your laptop makes you feel better, so be it.  Do you think it is ever negative for children to name their stuffed animals? Do you feel that giving the "wrong" moral status to objects is detrimental to those who assign it?

Different People, Different Moral Values?

In response to Cameron Hamlet's question, "If one human has a tendency to suffer more, say they cry everyday and are very emotional, do they have more moral value than a human who rarely cries and is stable minded?"...

     This is a very intriguing question, but I believe my answer is simply "no". I understand some humans suffer more than others, both physically and emotionally. Some lead easy lives, while others are plagued by genocide, war, and poverty. Some are always dealing with diseases they contract, and others go throughout their entire lives, barely even catching a cold. As for me, I have a low pain tolerance. But, as for emotional suffering, all individuals have different ways of dealing with their pain. I have friends who will cry and cry for hours and eventually feel better. I tend to push things far back into my mind, "bottling up" my problems. There is really no right or wrong way to deal with our feelings.
     However, what about moral value of such people one may ask? Well, it seems to me that moral value is more separate from emotions that Cameron is implying. There is a difference between morals and emotions. Consulting "dictionary.com", morals are defined as, "conforming to the rules of right conduct," and emotions are defined as, "any of the feelings of joy, sorrow, fear, hate, love, etc." So, basically morals can evoke emotional feelings within us, but morals are not emotions. This leads me to believe that someone who is deemed "emotional" does not have a higher moral value than anyone who is their opposite. I think this is because those who are "stable-minded" truly are still just as emotional as everyone else, they just do not show their feelings physically. Do you believe that it is "healthy" to cry? Are some ways of expressing our emotions better than others?

Perspectives on Vegetarianism

     When I was in high school I never really encountered anyone who was a vegitarian. There were a few though, and they usually did it because they believed in the ethical treatment of animals. But upon coming to college, I have found that many of my friends (five of them) have, or have been at one time, a vegitarian or vegan. Personally, I have always eaten meat, and I could not imagine living without it for any long period of time. Today in class, Professor Johnson said that vegitarians often claim that it is "unnatural" to consume animal flesh because they have the tendency to assign very high moral status to animals. I found this an interesting thought, so I decided to interview two of my vegitarian friends to try to understand their views on the subject.

Kaylie...
     Currently, Kaylie is a vegitarian and has been for about one month. She had tried to be one once before, but that had only lasted for a few days. This time however, she seems successful. It was upon seeing videos and reading literature about how big farms raise and kill their animals, that she decided she could not eat meat. According to her, "if we are raising these animals to die, we might as well give them a good life," but she does not think this will happen now and probably will not in the distant future. In other words, she does not disagree with eating meat, she just believes the way in which we treat animals is seriously flawed.
     Kaylie also related to me that she feels all animals have feelings and that the cows, for example, who are being brought to the slaughterhouse know they are about to die. I do not necessarily agree with this statement though. In class we discussed how animals have different moral statuses based on their levels of intelligence, sentience, sense of self, etc. I believe that animals such as cows may feel pain when they die, and may suffer, but they do not necessarily have the mental capacity to predict what lies in their near future as do humans.

Katherine...
     Before I met her, she had been a vegitarian for a year but was forced to stop due to health reasons. Similar to Kaylie, she had seen a video of how animals were treated when they were raised and killed for food. She even likened humanity's treatment of animals to the mass production of machines, and this struck me as a sickening, but true comparison. Katherine does believe in free range farms, which give animals the ability to roam and stretch their legs. It was shocking when she told me that some chickens raised for slaughter do not even learn how to walk, for they are in such tight quarters for their short lives.
     Though she eats meat now, she still is bothered by what us humans do to the other creatures of this planet. She said that she believes animals feel pain and there is no reason to therefore treat them in the way that we do. We may be a different species, but that does not give us the right to carry on as we do. It struck me when she said that meat eating is essentially natural, for it is a form of population control. I definitely agree with this statement, though it seems to me that humans often go beyond what is considered "natural". I am aware we discussed in class the implications of using this word, so I will attempt to say what I truly mean. I understand that everything humans do is natural, for it is in our nature to eat meat and build machines, even if it is bad for the environment.

     As I have mentoned in a previous blog, it bothers me how humans see themselves as superior to all other beings. Although, I have to keep this in mind in realizing that the destruction humans may seem to cause all has to do with checks and balances. It was brought up in class that the planet often destroys its content and builds it back up again. That is truly a part of nature. I just wish that so many of my philosophical thoughts did not always tie back to humans' delusions of superiority. We were somehow made to be some of the most intelligent beings, but it seems that in doing so, we are also some of the most inconsiderate and "stupid" in some senses.
     What would the world be like if humans did not always see themselves as superior to other beings? Is it even possible to change these societal thoughts, or are they simply always going to be a part of our nature? Additionally, what would the world be like if there were no vegitarians? Would humans have the same respect for animals as we do today, or would we just have less respect overall for other creatures?

The Quest for Truth

     Today in class a point was brought up that I had not thought about much before. This was that in this world, for every view one person has, there is someone who has the complete opposite view. So for example, one person might believe that it is within their right to beat animals, and there are most definitely others who believe that this is one of the most horrible things anyone can ever do. There are those who think everyone should learn another language to communicate with the others on this planet effectively, and then there are those who believe we only need to learn the language we were born into. And there are those who believe killing of others can be justified and those who believe it is never morally justifiable. But, as raised in class, which moral or ethical opinions are correct? How do people determine which opinion is correct when they have so many to choose from? How are cultural opinions even determined anyways? Do the majority of people just think in such a way and eventually it is thought of as correct, or is there one authority that determines what is right?
     This is all extremely confusing to me. I suppose I just came to the realization today that there are so many views I have assumed and beliefs I have adopted and I am not sure why I have. Have I neglected to see the truth? Are some of the opinions our world has universally adopted such as "killing is wrong" incorrect? I suppose I am just driving myself crazy in a philosophical circle of questions. But, I mentioned before how I have a love of history. Looking back over the years and observing what people did, how they reacted, and how they judge others can be very intriguing if one thinks of the "what ifs". What if the Holocaust never happened? What if our nature was different? What if we never evolved beyond being "cavemen"? It seems I am just questioning history, though there does not seem to be much need for it, for what has happened is over now. There might be a need to examine our lives, but in the spirit of opposite opinions, it might also be pointless to do so!

Wandering Souls...

In response to Brittany Guntor's question, "Why do some people feel such a strong desire to travel?"...

     I really love to travel. Every summer while I was growing up my family would take my siblings and I on at least one vacation, and that is when I began to realize how interesting it was to see Massachusetts, the rest of the United States, and eventually other countries. As I got older I developed an interest in history, and a desire to be an archeologist. I find the people of other cultures fascinating and absolutely love studying anthropology at M.C.L.A. But, why do I have such a fascination with travel and other peoples? I believe it has to do with the law of diminishing marginal returns, which is the idea that the first glass of water you drink when you are extremely thirsty will be the most satisfying, but the third glass will definitely not be as satisfying. Last semester in Art and Philosophy we applied this idea to the human desire for artwork that is new and different, and now I believe this concept can be applied to humanity's love of travel as well. We always want to see places that we have never been to before. We are fascinated by "exotic" things. All throughout history people have felt the need to explore this planet, and once they had seen everything on earth, they began to explore outerspace. This makes it seem that the need to move and travel is part of our nature. It is within some animals' nature to kill other animals for food, and it appears to be in our nature to explore our environment. Perhaps we developed this characteristic to protect ourselves, because by inspecting our surroundings, we can ensure we are not in danger. But it seems that the need for travel might have deeper motives than that. When we go on journeys after all, we often discover more about ourselves. Do you believe it is important for people to travel? Is remaining stationary as many did in the past more beneficial than our constant need to travel today?

Universal Love

In response to Israel Diaz's question,"Can other animals love like humans do?"

     In short, I believe the answer to this question is yes. Love comes in many various forms - friendship love, romantic love, family love, and love of a pet. Many people are almost obsessed with the pets they keep in particular, and often treat them better than they treat their own family. For some reason, humans have evolved to have a deep love of animals, and sometimes animals reciprocate this affection. Personally, I only have two birds instead of the common domesticated cat or dog. My birds tend to show affection toward each other, but not toward myself or my family members. This leads me to believe that perhaps just as we rank the significant moral status of animals, we should rank their capacity to love as well. This is because it is certainly evident that cats and dogs are more capable of having an attachment to a human than a fish for instance. So, are animals that are more similar to each other more likely to love each other? If you look at humans and cats for an example, they are both mammals, have the ability to communicate (not with each other, but with their own species), and are relatively intelligent. But humans and giraffes, or humans and iguanas do appear to have enough similarities to deeply love each other, and I do not believe a giraffe's love of a human could rival the love that a dog has for its owner. But, I have this nagging feeling that ability to give and receive love is associated the most with intelligence.
     What also cannot be ignored in this context is the nature versus nurture debate, though it might lead me to contradict myself. Though animals such as bears, lions, and deer may not usually bond with humans after being raised in their natural habitats, they do seem to form incredible connections with people if they are raised with humans since birth. So, is the ability to love other creatures purely based off of the environment that one is raised in? After all, I do recall stories of children being raised in the "wild" and developing closer relationships with animals such as wolves than with their fellow humans. Perhaps at birth most animals are just programmed to love whoever takes care of them and keeps them safe. If this is the case, then is who we love then not determined by our biology?