Looking Back on Pages Past!

    When I asked, "Just because something shares 'similar development' with us, and similar attributes to us, does that mean they should have similar rights as us?" with regards to Cavalieri's argument for whales having a basic right to life due to their complex brains and social structures with cultural differences  much like our own. This made me think briefly of our conversations with attributing rights to animals if they share similarities with us. I can't remember exactly who brought up this idea in one of our earlier class discussions, but I remember having an "aha!" moment as that concept made total sense. If mice can forgo food and basic needs for the sake of pleasurable shocks to the brain at the pull of a lever, and we can do the same thing, why don't we think they have a similar desire to rights and not being treated like, well, animals? Though I agree with Cavalieri's idea and examples of the complexity of cetacean social structures and cultural differences between populations, I wonder if that gives them the specific rights that we, as humans have given ourselves.

      I believe this beings it back to Donnovon's criticism of attributing our feelings of how things should be treated to animals: that dog is hungry, it should at this food, it isn't eating the food, it must be sick... we don't know that for sure, maybe it doesn't like the food you are offering it, we are just using our knowledge of how we handle ourselves to analyze animal behavior. Though I personally agree with the idea that any animal would like to avoid being harmed, and I feel we are potentially beyond the times where we need to hunt whales excessively for whale oil, I still feel odd saying "whales have rights as us humans do. I can't explain why in any good way, but I just feel we as humans are pushing our ideas onto animals too much for my liking.

If anyone has any ideas on this, I would appreciate reading them as they may help me formulate my opinions better!

Since there is no picture, I included an article on the coordination of killer whales in attacking a baby whale, and the attempt of a mother to keep the baby above water so it can breathe.

A Response to Mr. McNamara

Responding to the question Andrew posted, Can you really determine if there is “not much going on” in the life of a cow versus that of a human? I like this question, particularly the attached idea that cows can potentially have as simple a life plan as sleeping in the grass in a meadow.  I particularly liked the .gif that Andrew mentioned of the dogs sledding as I have seen my dog attempt this feat, rolling onto her side, then slowly skidding down a snowy hill before rolling over, looking back at us and giving us an ashamed look before walking off on "her highness's" short legs. She is a welsh corgi who has a princess complex. Using my dog as an example, she will wake up, ONLY when she hears food, and she will only act friendly if she wants to get petted. Picturing a day in her life:

*Hear food* wake up! Lets start the day!
Oh, the big thing that smells like "I can get food whenever I want" is moving, lets sniff it!
Oh, it's moving something towards me, I'm going to back away and see if it chases me...
Oh no! It's chasing me! *Hides under the bed for 4 hours*
What to do now.... lets go out again, I want my ears scratched.
Lets sniff the big thing! Wait, the other dog is sniffing it already! *bites at the tall German Shepherd's snout*
Yay! The big thing decided to scratch me, now I don't need to cause this thing more pain to get it away from the attention I desire!
I'm going to go sleep under the bed some more.

it sure is an interesting way to look at animals, them having a "plan of action for the day" and I always thought that and spoke for the animals as a kid until people called me weird for talking like the newt we'd capture. "Oh, this is warm, I'm going to sit on this!" (really my face as I lie down)... I still secretly think that animals and even some inanimate objects have a plan or purpose they are secretly trying to accomplish  (like my pens always disappearing, or my pocket watch only working when I try to go to sleep at my house...)

Gracie (the corgi) and Karina (the sheppie)

A deceptive question? or a memorable one?

Examining my question:

Question 1: The idea of consciousness in animals, and it's evolution from the idea of deceit, do you believe this is the only concept that lead to a “consciousness” if there even is one in animals?

       I believe that deceit would be one major way for animals to come up with a "conscious" that is, being aware that they are aware of their surroundings. Looking at it from an evolutionary perspective, if you are a peacock able to entice a female with the number of eyes in your plumage, you "win" right? What if you didn't have as many eyes as some other male, but you were able to keep a female from seeing that male and other males who had more eyes then you through constant harassment? I believe the peacock analyzing that females choose based on plumage and number of eyes is ingrained in their brain as "instinct"... but the ability to consciously evaluate that "I have less eyes then that other peacock" then, rather than trying your best with what you have and dying, you decide, "I am probably the worst-off peacock... but if I'm the only one that female sees, maybe I can still mate!" You then stalk the female and, if another male approaches  you harass that male until he leaves, never letting him display his plumage. I would say that's consciousness from deceit.

Look into my eyes dear! They are the "best around" 

            Another idea of where "consciousness" may have arisen is the idea of "reciprocal altruism", the likes of which vampire bats exhibit. These bats have developed their brains enough to remember the bats in their groups. When the bats return, if one of them (Batto, in this example) didn't have quite as good a night as another (Vlad, we will call it), Batto will be hungry. Vlad will sense this and offer Batto some of his own blood that he got. Vlad will then remember this favor that he did for Batto and hope that, if Vlad has an unfortunate night, Batto will help him. Should Batto return unsuccessful a second night, as motion that he is hungry to Vlad, Vlad will remember that Batto hasn't returned the favor and will not offer him blood anymore. I think this is consciousness, as having memory has been discussed as a quality to have consciousness. But this goes deeper then just remembering "this might hurt me" this is remembering one specific bat, and remembering that you did something nice for it, so it needs to pay you back before you give it anything more. I think that is an example of conscious decisions that can only be made by some form of consciousness.

I'd gladly pay you Tuesday for a Hamburger today!

A Response to Mr. Ishmael

Further commenting on Raj's post about habituation and auto pioleting, I decided to throw another example into the mix, relating to tigers because they are cute. I think this example is more biological then making a habit of things, but it's cool! In Tailand, a tiger that was raised by a pig raises pigs. This is quite interesting, as the video describes since, yes they are "mortal enemies"  but I think it harkens back to what we discussed on Monday in class about how you can develop habits by trying things over and over. In this case, it seems the sow accepted the tiger cub's mewing and body language, offering them food, the cubs suckled and realized that this thing gives food if I'm nice and gentile to it. Since they had no "training" from a parent, they did not learn to hunt, they learned to feed off of the sow's milk (the zoo probably fed them individually some meat as they grew older) I find these stories fascinating. 

I also think that this is how we developed our relationship with dogs or with any pets. I mean, I have a German shepherd who barks and scares little kids who have never met her, but if they try enough, they get used to her... She looks like a coyote and if I see a coyote I get intimidated and reach for my knife or any weapon nearby, but I don't do this to my dog. I believe it is due to me placing extrinsic value on my dog above that of some "wild animal" even if they look similar and are "the same." Now, relating this back to ethics and rights, I feel that any animal can be conscious of it's environment, much like any human can have a memory of where to walk and where not to walk through experiance. To get into neurobiology a bit, it is (as of now, only a theory) the spines on our dendrites within not only the telencephelon (forebrain or "cortex"... the big part of our brain) but the whole body that gives "us" (all animals) our muscle memory and in a few animals (yes.... particularly mammals... especially those above 1 year of age...)  the telencephelon is more developed (or actually develops) giving the animal a sense of "mental memory" and I guess you could say "consciousness." so it's not ethics we are discussing, it's biochemistry!!

A Response to Mr. Keefner

Kurtiss Keefner's question of: "Ought a moral agent act morally towards a moral patient?" seems to be a hot topic in all the readings we have done so far. Reading further then last week's blogging session (Is that cheating?) I came upon R.G. Frey who discusses the interests (or lack there of) of animals. Since Regan's qualification for moral patients part b requires interests it made me wonder (using his logic) if Regan is correct in making a "part b" moral agent. Mr. Frey's analogy of the tractor that performs better if it is well oiled, yet has no verbal or intelligent way to communicate that it has an interest in being well oiled made me wonder if language is a barrier between not only nonhuman animals and humans, but if it's a barrier between having "interests" (or, rather, "wants and desires" as he puts it) and thus, be the subjects of rights as Leonard Nelson was referred to saying.

Donovan would disagree entirely with Frey's argument, saying that we must listen to what the animal is telling us and that there should be no such thing as a language barrier... I seem to side with Mr. Frey in this one, not because I dislike animals, but because, in our world where communication is so essential, it is completely odd to "listen" to something which cannot communicate on the same level as us. A dog can bark, a dog can whine, but are we able to understand anything? Other then the fact that the animal is distressed in some degree. My dog barks incessantly at the slightest sound. the bark sounds angry, but for all I know, my dog could be saying, "hello" or "You are trespassing " or "give me food!" I understand it as, "oh I heard something! Look everything, I heard something! WHEEE!!!" (as she spins around quickly while barking louder and louder with every rotation.)

That being said, if we go back to the original question, should we "moral agents" act morally towards a moral patient, I would say first that, based on Frey's analysis and definitions partnered by Nelson's distinction between needs, and wants... I would say there can be no "a" or "b" moral patient, that everything must be grouped together as one since they are "all the same" and, since they are all at the same level, they have no rights since they have no desire for rights, only an "interest" in their basic needs for survival. Therefore, since they have "no rights" we should act on the side of caution. I liked that discussion in class. "if you are unsure, act on the side of caution" if we don't need to kill something, we shouldn't need to kill it. Try telling that to a wolf that just brutally maimed a squirrel and, if Donovan is correct, the wolf will tell us, "I was hungry and needed to eat, therefore I killed it." Ask a human who just ate a ham sandwich and he will tell you, "I haven't eaten all day and was really hungry!"

I found this picture online and thought it was a little bit relevant...

or I am just insane and enjoy pictures.

To conclude this long post, "I believe a moral agent ought to act 'morally' towards a moral patient, within the bounds of it's own needs."

A thought on Regan

     While reading through Tom Regan's work, I came to a question about his Moral Agency and Moral Patients (a and b). 
I was wondering if there were any examples of non-human animals that could be moral agents. 

Thinking about eusocial and pseudosociatal animals, particularly the honey bee. (not a mammal  as I think all these philosophers consider the mammals too heavily and disregard the arthropods that are social.) When looking at this social insect, they are able to communicate their surroundings, feelings, and remember many locations of flowers, and those who have wronged them. This made me think if they could be considered moral agents, especially int eh case of predation. When a predator (human) approaches the colony, the warriors swarm out and buzz around the antagonists menacingly  Through body language the attacker will usually realize that, "I should not go near as they mean me harm should I approach." Whether this is through OUR own memories and tales of bees stinging us, or through body language alone, I am unsure. The bee will intentionally sting the attacker if they ignore their warnings, aiming to inflict pain and tell them to "go away." This choice is not just "because it's the thing to do" as the bee will die after it's stinger is dislodged in the attacker's flesh. Therefore the bee will do everything in it's power to deter the attacker before it sacrifices itself for the good of the colony. I personally believe this is a fully conscious choice as the bee values it's life enough to try and ward off predators before stinging an attacker and killing itself, yet wishes to do the maximum harm to the attacker to "get the point across"(haha) so it's sacrifice will not be for nothing.

That's my thoughts on that question that I asked.

Initial Thoughts on first reading

My initial thoughts on the preface and the first bit of reading we have done is: I am going to have a tough fight ahead of me. That being said, I am up for a challenge, and probably an introduction would be useful.

I am Andy, a third year biology major with little to no background in philosophy. The one class I took in high school I learned instantly that I dislike Plato's allegory of a cave because I understood none of it through reading. When I asked questions and heard other people's responses I began to understand it's interpreted meaning, and how many people can interoperate the same words in many ways. I began to understand the flow of philosophy a bit more... but only through discussion. In my freshman year, I took Lords of the Ring Cycle, appreciating Wagner's Ring Cycle, and learning a bit about Nietzsche. I liked his name, how it was spelled, and I could kind of grasp some of his ideas.... wether I agree with them or not is another thing, but I started to understand through a handbook, when it came to the actual reading, i was utterly lost. Now in my 3rd year here, I am willing to discus concepts relating to animals, humans, and ethics. We shall see how well I fare, but regardless I am up for a challenge!

Lets begin the fun together! If anyone would like to learn about animal ethics from a biologist's perspective, feel free to read some of my posts!

My feelings on this class's reading make me feel as though there is a bear hunt, and I am said bear battling for my life against the trained dogs of philosophy. I understand not their language, reason, or tactics as they are foregin.... but it hurts... though does it hurt me the same way I could hurt them? This will require deeper thought!