First post from the middle of Kyoto

While walking the streets there are many shrines devoted to Kami. One such Kami is that of a boar that save a guy's life. It was then enshrined and I actually had a chance to pray to the Kami, it was an interesting feeling. There were also many dogs around with no leashes. There was even one that had sunglasses and a pink fedora, it looked perfectly content walking through the crowded streets of Kyoto during the lantern festival! I have done no reading as of yet, but it is really interesting seeing the connection to nature and animals people here have

A Response to Mr. Keefner, and Thought Generating

Responding to Kurtiss Keefner's response to me, I can see where he is coming from with regards to the selfish humans attributing rights to ourselves above all other organisms, and by doing so, we have worked the right to life into our laws. I believe that us, as "moral agents" have not necessarily an obligation, but  we should at the very least, respect those who share "mental capabilities" or "social capabilities" with us, such as chimps, and whales. I believe the idea of giving rights to life to "moral Agents" such as ourselves and, perhaps these "persons" (whales and apes) is justified in our mind, but I still have trouble wrapping my head around the idea that we have so much authority as to dictate "what lives". This is something that I can identify and come to a conclusion in my head but have trouble saying or expressing, therefore I'm going to use this post to try and determine what exactly I'm trying to say.

Humans are the top of the "food chain" because of our advances in technology such as holding sticks to strike at a greater distance, or pick insects out of trees or reach further, early agriculture to step out of hunter/gathering, and the advent of cooking meat to aid in digestion and production/ advancement of the telencephelon (fore-brain, cortex, "major part of the brain" "grey mater" whatever, they are all essentially the same thing) Due to this, we were able to think, remember and eventually step towards eusociality.

Us humans, we like to label, it's in our nature, we also like to believe that we can empathize or tell body language saying "my baby looks sick" or "that dog looks hurt" whether we know it or not. This broken thought leads me to the idea that we put rights on ourselves, but rights I feel are a construction of our own minds, we use rights to justify how humans treat humans saying "there's a right to bear arms, or a right to the freedom of speech" these two having nothing to do with animals other then a bear.... that's a joke on bear arms...

Evolution, or looking back on the past? -Relevancy is unknown!

I just don't get why we need to say "this whale has the same rights as me" I try my best to respect animals as much as I can and, maybe I'm being selfish, but I don't care if all animals have a right to life, or if only a few have a right to life, I'm just going to try not to hurt them as best I can unless I need to, and if I do, i'm not going to be sadistic and slowly drive a screw through their brain or anything gruesome, i will try to follow Temple's idea that I should give them a quick, painless death if necessary  after a few warning shots, a shot right between the eyes, rather then shooting it's legs and intentionally making it suffer.

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."