Corporate

The Wake Up Call

blog 26:

VanDe Veer and Callicot are two critical modifcators of animal rights ethics and the hierarchical positions. The former, believes that there is this “internal,” critical modification, in some degree, of the sentience which is morally relevant. The latter, believes in a modified version of leoplodian critical modification. To some degree, the importance of ecosystems and their goods and services are morally relevant.

Basically, “VanDeVeer argues that the ‘species egalitarianism’ of Singer and Regan goes too far in acknowledging the moral standing of nonhuman animals and leaves us in a state of paralysis when it comes to those ethical conflicts in which we must make hard choices between human and nonhuman interests” (Diagrams of Environmental Ethics Theories). Instead, VanDe Veer takes a two-factor position. His two-factor position claims that, “in weighing our duty to sentient beings in ethical conflicts, it is ‘morally relevant’ to consider the first “factor” of what types of conflicting interests are in conflict.” First, we must evaluate our basic interests, which without a being cannot function satisfactory. Second, we must evaluate our serious interests, which still allows the being to function, albeit with difficulty and a cost to its well-being. This second factor can also include differing levels of psychological capacity, like self-awareness, memory, foresight, social-consciousness, and life-span. VanDe Veer sees a difficulty in measuring the sentience of human and non-human animals. How do we take each of their sentience into account during times of great conflict? (look at the chart to see his resolution).

On the other hand there is Callicott, and he takes on Leopoldian land ethics. Callicott believes that to a certain degree, ecosystems, its good and services, are morally relevant. He believes in strong reformism. Meaning, we has human beings have a duty torwards animals because virtually all human beings are sentient beings; thus a plethora of animals are sentient creatures. Respecting the community, and each other, us sentient beings need to make sure, in times of conflict, that we are not letting the other sentient creature suffer. Of those animals who are capable of suffering, we can assume they have at least on interest, which is not to suffer.

However, there is another viewpoint. Although the above seem to be reaching for the middle-of-the-road, Radical Speciecism takes the far right. It believes that it is morally permissible to treat animals in any fashion one so chooses. Because animals are not sentient beings, therefore they have no intrinsic values. Yet, if we acknowledge that animals suffer, which they do, then radical speciesism is mistaken, and false.

From my perspective, I would rather take the middle-of-the-road agrument than take the radical speciecism route. Yes, I do admit that there are tons of radical beliefs out in this world, but I do not believe that all of them are right. I mean, if you cannot admit to yourself that animals are sentient, just like us, then you are fooling yourself; causing an injustice with not only yourself, your environment, but to your world as well. Although that might seem like a harsh slap in the face, it is a much needed, rude wake-up call. Listen people, we need to change our ways, because most animals are sentient creatures who can feel pain and perceive danger, they are like us. The only different between us and non-human animals is our ability to rationalize situations; but I do not believe that puts us on top of the prymaid.

Advertisements
Categories: animal ethics, animal rights, Corporate, Environmental Ethics, Environmental Policy | Leave a comment

Sentient? Huh, Come Again….

blog 25:

Does criterion of moral standing, the idea of being “sentien,” not reason, extend to animals? Well, not most animals, but non-human animals that are able to enter social relationships or have the ability to conciously feel pain, pleasure, and have constant awareness of their surroundings are sentient beings. Which means certain non-human animals are not going to be qualified to fit this criteria, unfortunately.

Who is state that our well being is worth more than the well being of an elephant or a dog? Lets discuss an idea, Moral Egalitarianism –not hierarchism, states that we cannot rank human lives over other non-human lives. This become relevant in blog 25.1times of trade-off situations, like when you are willing to kill an animal, or human, over the other. Therefore, neither a human’s life or an elephants life takes precendence. We are all equal.

However, abolitionists have some policies and rules dealing with this equality. If you want to eat animals, that is fine, but it has to be done humanely. Which means you cannot slaughter an animal inhumanely; by reducing your consumption of wrongly slaughtered animals the number of them slaughtered inhumanely will be lessened. This can also be done by reducing one’s consumption of meat products. Refining what meat you at to only farm-raised, humanely killed meat.

One organization which follows these guidelines is PETA, and it stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. It is an organization or political wing of the animal ethical movement, and holds a strong opinion abou the animal rights movement. Besides PETA, there are two other animal rights activists whose main goals are obtaining animal rights, albeit in two different ways. Peter Singer and Tom Regan take their beliefs from either Mill or Kant.

Peter Singer is a controversial guy. He uses the utilitarian framework of betham and mill. Believing that sentients is a traditional concept used in animal behavior or philosophy: means some kind of conciousness, and on some level an awareness of the blog 25.2environment. Singer states that if a non-human animal would be able to follow his framework of utilitarianism then it should lead to moral extensionism. Principles of utilitarianism should apply to all non-human animals. Whereas Tom Regan bases is beliefs on Kantian structures. Therefore, we all have an innate duty to respect others and the alienable rights of others.

However, are all animals really sentient? Well, in a sense… maybe not. Because it is scientifically unclear whether or not lower animals are sentient enough or how much sentience they have, if they have it. Yet there is some slight primative awareness within animals. But what they do on a daily basis does not mean they are aware of what is going on; deep down their primative instincts are based on primative awareness of their surroundings.

Can extensionism really cover animal sentience? Are animals really capable of receiving full moral worth? I believe they are. I mean some animals, like fish, might seem like a stretch but every animal has an extensive network of nerves, and perception of their environment to which give them the right to receive full moral membership. Which means that millions of species across the globe should receive full sentience membership. In essence, I agree with Singer, but more so with Regan. Regan believes that we all have this duty to fulfill which tells us to extend respect and alienable rights to other species, besides us.

Categories: animal ethics, animal rights, Corporate, ethics | Tags: , , , , | Leave a comment

The Fake, Disgusting, World.

blog 23 & 24:

“As long as there are slaughterhouses ….there will always be battlefields.”

blog 23.1

Animal welfare is a difficult subject for most Americans, because some Americans believe that animals and humans are not created equal in the eyes of God. According to some believers, non-human animals are not sentian creatures. Because of this ignorance, there are some staggering statistics, “approximately 11 billion animals are killed annually in the United States, 86% are birds–98% of land animals in agriculture–and the overwhelming majority are “broiler” chickens raised for meat, aproximately 1 million killed each hour” (Humane Society).

The average citizen in the United States is unaware of the doings of the food industry; the mega food corporations rather veil their processes in deep secrecy than make them public. Publicizing these secrets would create immense hatred amongst consumers, and they will direct their anger torwards these corporations, and the U.S. government. The government has not been able to maintain the food industry, and without regulation it has turned into one giant slaughterhouse, literally. Take birds for instance, “on factory farms, birds raised for meat are confined by the tens of thousands in grower houses, which are commonly artificially lit, force-ventilated, and completely barren except for litter material on the floor and long rows of feeders and drinkers” (Humane Society). Yet, it is not just birds, “more than 116 million pigs, intelligent and highly social animals are slaughtered annually in the United States” (Humane Society). These animals are killed without a single extra thought given, and it happens daily. We need to change. This system needs to change.

First things first, all of us need to consider non-human animals as sentient beings. Sentient meaning, “able to perceive or feel things;” most animals, if not all, are able to think for themselves, feel for themselves, and perceive incidents for themselves (Dictionary.com). Therefore animals shall be considered sentient beings. They deserve to possess their own will and to control their own lives, yet we do not let them.

There are many acts out there which try to protect non-human animals by speaking up for them. Abolitionists believet that no animals should be used for any human purpose, referring to animal testing, and inhumane slaughter. Slaughtering sentient creatures goes against every moral rights and ethical codes built into our DNA. How can we kill our brothers and sisters? Take, for example the film, “Earthlings: Make the Connection,” which concentrates on chaos of the human world versus the non-human animal world. Focusing on the slaughtering of animals through various sectors: the food industry, the clothing industry (including leather and fur), and the entertainment industry. This film disgusts me; but not the actual film, instead I am referring to the content of the film.

Containing a multitude of segments, “Earthlings” is one giant vomit inducing pill. It takes the audience on a journey through th various treatments of animals across a plethora of industries. Take, for instance the clothing industry, cattle in India are purchased from peasant farmers and take on long, brutal journey to a destination where the cattle’s skin is torn off. Tearing the skin right off the wriggling bodies of the still alive cattle, workers poke and prode these cattles to death. All of this is done in the name of obtaining an important commodity: leather. If that is not gruesome enough, lets look at the process of obtaining fur -yes fur is still a hot commodity amongst consumers. Consumers love fur. Obtaining fur is an interesting, albeit heinous. First, wild animals, dogs, cats, and various other species are capture and then caged. Then, the animals are taken by the workers who either rip the animals fur, along with their skin, right off their bodies, or they will stick a metal rod in the animals mouth and put an electrical prod up the animal’s anus, electricuting it to death. Beautiful proceedure, isn’t it?

Combatting these wrongdoings are acts such as: the Animals Cruelty Act of 2015, proposition two, or the Humane Slaughter Act; all acts are vying to prevent further atrocities to  non-human animals. The Animal cruelty act deals with the prevention of animals being transported and shown publicly, inhumanely. Where the Humane Slaughter Act states all animals shall be humanely slaughtered, which means the animal must be unconscious in time for the slaughter; yet most slaughterhouses slit the animals’ carotid artery which happens while the animal is still alive. Alive and inhumane slaughter will only be stopped by future acts, such as the ones above, but also from a push from American citizens. We can stop this.

Animal welfare has an abundance of contributors, including: Charles Darwin and Jane Goodall. They started from observations; strong examinations allowing them to see how non-human animals have evolved, and how animals truely feel, perceive, and

I believe, if an non-human animal can understand their surrounding then they must be sentient beings. Yet this viewpoint is not commonplace; however it seems to be growing rapidly. “We are all animals of this planet,” so lets share what has been given to us, evenly (Earthlings). Distributing welfare evenly would be most fair, and a good start. We are rational creatures, so lets start acting like ones. Stopping the inhumane slaughter, stopping the injustice, and stopping the mass murders of animals shall creater a greater, fairer, just world.

“Like us, first and foremost, they are earthlings”

Categories: animal ethics, animal rights, Corporate, Egoism, Environmental Ethics, Environmental Policy, sentian beings | Tags: , , , , , | 2 Comments

Anthropocentrists, Are you Weak or Strong?

Blog 20:

Looking back it seems that there is this deep division between the world’s socially ideals of our world’s environmental conduct. It seems that most of us might have to choose between Baxter’s world, which justifies the greed of the human race, or with Aldo Leopold which equalizes all species, lowering the domineering stance of the human race down to a level on par with all species. However, will humans be able to see themselves as a specie with equitable virtues, as well as ethics, as other species such as trees or animals? Well, there is one option, Bryan Norton. Norton offers an in-between option which shoots to identify a pure, as well as distinct, environmental ethic.

blog 20.1

By looking at his paper, “Environmental Ethics and Weak Anthropocentrism,” one sees that Norton tries to identify a distinct environmental ethic. Beginning by deciphering what would make a distinct environmental ethic, Norton believes this ethic must take a distinct stance on either accepting or rejecting anthropocentrism. Anthropocentrism is “the position that human beings are the central or most significant species (more so than animal species)” (Wikipedia). Personally, I do not believe in this view point; I consider myself a non-anthropocentrists -considering how many animals I have grown up with I am not surprised. However, some non-anthropocentrists believe that humans are the source of all values here on Earth, but also they believe we can add value to any non-human thing. This removal of human beings as head haunches of the world allows the environmental ethic to become slightly more visible, due to this flexibility.

However if we are to measure this ethic, and its worth, we need to take into account human interest, and what those interests are. Anthropocentrism takes into account our interests, so what does Norton have to say about our traits? Norton states: there are two types of human interests, felt preferences and considered preferences. The former is a desire(s) which temporarily satisfies a specific experience for a specific individual. The latter is any want or need which an individual expresses after sometime of thinking it over, carefully. However, how does the world see these ideas of felt preference and considered preferences?

Well many original economic approaches see felt preferences as the basic platform for our decision making, economically.  I mean look at it this way, how many times does company look at a resource and see a profit, all they care about it money. Money this, money that… money money, and money. Whereas the concept of considered thought has more thought placed into the motive because it takes place after an individual spent sometime thinking the situation over. I have thought it over, and if I want to ace my test, or ace my blogs I will need to work hard and do well. Simple as that.

Finally, there are the concepts of strong and weak anthropocentrism. Strong anthropocentrist is a person who makes a choice based on felt preferences, most of the time. While a weak anthropocentrist is a person who makes a choice based on his or her blog 20.2considered preferences. Thus, weak anthropocentrist will allow us to see beautiful critiques of our values systems, especially here in the United States. When you live in a world which contains skewed mindsets, confusion between wants and needs you will never make any progress.

I believe that our world is filled with selfish people because they are most strong anthropocentrists. They would rather be rash with their decisions, thus putting certain things in front of others. I agree with Leopold’s land ethic, especially after his deal with the deer and the wolves. Our land needs us to make bold, smart and concise decisions allowing it to continue to thrive. If we kill off certain species the ecosystems will go out of whack. We need to learn to be weak anthropocentrists, but maybe not all of the time. Yes, we need to learn to make concise, thought out decisions but we also need to rash, quick in response to help fix the problems we created.

Categories: Corporate, Egoism, Environmental Ethics, Environmentalism, Ethical Egoism, Ethical Reasoning | Tags: , , , , | Leave a comment

Consumption: The Mindless Dummy Edition

blog 19.1blog 19:

Should citizenship, value and politics be able to override the free market? Well, maybe. Today’s global society is exactly that: global. Nothing can be said differently because our world is filled with consumer wants and needs, skewed by an unnatural consumer market, like I will state in the next blog. However, our global environment helps us to understand the crisis of environmental degradation that is at hand. First off what steps shall we take?

Well, changing our consumer culture would be the first I would change. It is impossible to move five feet without seeing someone with a shopping bag, or hearing an advertisement for some new, and “improved” product. America, as well as the world, has gone mad. Unfortunately I will say that I have delved deep into the consumer culture, and it is something I regret; however, it is something that helps the world’s economy move round.  So what should we, including myself, consider ourselves? Are we citizens or are we consumers of this vast culture? Well, lets comprehend what exactly is a moral citizen versus what is a model consumer,

"the perfect customers"

“the perfect customers”

then we can decide from there. The model consumer is the perfect egoist. Looking at the “Economic Man,” one can see this idea further explained. First, one must see the world through the “mind’s I,” and its want for satisfaction. Second, one’s values are interpreted as prices and the willingness to pay, thus moral values (i.e. virtues and justice) “are factored out.” Thus, anyone with a product to sell can sell the item/service in any shape or form as long as one can get away with it. If you have a little trouble getting away with selling the item one can us what is called, “junk science.” Junk Science is a false study, or science, which helps to persuade people to see value in a product when there is absolutely none. Personally, I can tell when there is real science being used for a product and when they are trying to outsmart people and use junk science, and I laugh. I will never be fooled, hopefully.

Then there is the moral citizen. He or she is a person who takes “the moral point of view,” by seeing themselves as an equal member of society. Recognizing his or her own duty, but also the duty of others as well. This viewpoint allows the moral citizen to see the moral goodness, or excellence, in everyone. Therefore, these moral values remain independent of economic values. In turn, the moral citizen is unmoved by the devious sales-men of the model consumer, and instead, following the clearer more coherent sides of all arguments.

blog 19.2The overall citizen, however is really a combination of the two, the model consumer and the moral citizen. We all have this skewed sense of the model consumers wants, versus the moral citizens needs. Basically, everyone is a mixture of the two, however each individual will vary. Although, more and more Americans are becoming like the model consumer instead of becoming more like the moral citizen.

Today’s world is getting smaller due to technology. The model consumer is what all this fortune 500 companies want us to be, they do not want us to care about the environment or second guess or choices, they just want us to make a purchase. Unfortunately I fallen victim to their skewed ways. However, I think the only way out of this is to realize we do not need to get so many different things, and we should move back to nature. Nature is where we grew up, it is where children have fun and one can discover the amazing world we live in. We need to get back to that time.

 

Categories: Corporate, Environmental Ethics, Environmentalism, Ethical Reasoning, ethics | Tags: , , , , , , | Leave a comment

How many Humans Does it Take to Exploit the Earth?

blog 17:

blog 17.1

The Earth is filling up with people, their things, and their consumption related byproducts. Around 10,000 years the human population was made up of about five million individuals. It would not be until 1850 for the world’s population to reach over one billion individuals. Adjusting to this population explosion, mother Earth’s resources have been utilized to the extreme, taking a hit in its overall reserves. This begs the question: how much resources does the Earth have in store for us? Will its reserves be able to sustain an overall population north of seven billion individuals?

In 1798, Thomas Malthus published an essay on the Principles of Population. Malthus predicted that human population would start to grow exponentially and the production of food would not be able to keep up with demand. His prediction came true. Natural resources, such as: oil, timber, metals, minerals, and water, have been depleted. Worse, they are continuing to disappear, a time blog 17.3when our population really needs it — I mean it does not help that our population keeps growing, especially in developing nations. Perhaps the worst part was the number of people in poverty has reached over a billion individuals. These individuals are starving, or becoming extremely malnourished, just because not enough food is being produced where it is needed most. What can we do?

Differing philosophers have suggested alternative theories to combat this situation, one being Garrett Hardin. He suggests this concept of the “lifeboat.” It is a theory that states each nation has a carrying capacity based on its endowed resource and ingenuity. When a nation uses up all its resources it is not up to the other nations to help them out. Whereas utilitarian theorists often are criticized because they would help only those in need, but not necessarily closest to them first. Instead, they would help the people who are the most beneficial to the population as a whole. Our world has a carrying capacity, our resources are running out… maybe it is time we limit resource use and limit our population.

Population is an uncontrollable force, ever since technology has advanced population have been growing at an unfathomable rate. Humans need food, that is a thing, but the amount of food necessary to feed the entire planet is incredible. Just thinking about how much chemicals are needed or how much carbon dioxide is produced just sustain this world population, it is crazy. However, is it fair for us to misuse this planet, to over populate it while other species continue to dwindle in numbers?

Our world was designed from the beginning to withstand a certain number of each creature, but when that number exceeds its limit things will go haywire. Resources will disappear, and land will disappear for all, including species which have maintained their populations and their use of resources. Then, if I am to be bold, humans do not deserve ownership of the Earth and her resources. Maybe, just maybe, animals deserve a larger chunk of the world’s global resource change.

We need population control, take, for instance a law put into place similar to China’s one child policy, or simple family planning. I do not know if most will take this sitting down, but they will have to… I mean who is gonna sit there and let the government tell him or her how many children they can have. It will not be easy, at all. However, if we do not do anything about this exponential growth we will meet our demise. Yes, we do not know the official carrying capacity of the planet, let alone the United States, but what I do know is the amount of people living on this planet is not natural.

blog 17.2

Categories: climate change, Corporate, Environmental Ethics, Environmental Policy, human beings and the environment, New York City, policy issues, Poorer nations | Tags: , , , , , | Leave a comment

Corporation Selfishness

Blog 14

I feel like all I talk about is human’s innate need to be selfish, and to think only of oneself. I mean human are selfish creatures, but there are humans who are not selfish but think of others as well. Meaning they care about other species besides humans, a rare quality. In the late 1960’s the grass movement began with the “teach in” program. This program helped educate the masses of environmental issues inflicted by industrial societies. Taking place on April, 22nd every year it would later go on to become earth day. Issues came up afterwards, including Love Canal and Three Mile Island, and henceforth the term environmentalism included many different philosophies. Meaning,

“a philosophy that identifies wild landscapes with wholeness and aesthetic beauty and asserts that such landscapes, along with their plant and animal species, possess an inherent value beyond any economic value.”

Calling for the legal protection of environments and species to prevent all from being absorbed into now commonplace, industrial society. Industrial societies are incompatible with natural systems and if us humans are going to progress further we must understand who to live best as members of plant and animal communities.

Industry is taking over, take for example Nestle Corporation. This corporation is trying to buy up aquifers and water sources in the north but some counties, cities and states are fighting back. Many townships, are now declaring:

“Natural communities and ecosystems possess inalienable and fundamental rights to exist, flourish and naturally evolve within the Town of Shapleigh. It further decreed that any town resident had “standing” to seek relief for damages caused to nature – permitting, for example, a lawsuit on behalf of a stream.”

Natural systems have every right to become protected, and if they cannot protect themselves we must protect them from greedy corporations. Heinous crimes such as buying up all the water/aquifers should be punishable against law because no one has the right to own all of that, just like the colonists and the indians of the early years. John Winthrop said that because they did not cultivate their land we had a natural right to secure their land for ourselves.

WE DO NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT. LISTEN HERE NESTLE.

Like the indians, the people of Maine, Roosevelt or early sports-hunters, we all need to protect our environment. Protecting it will benefit us as well as fellow species of the Earth, and corporation greed should end with laws that prevent their greediness from destroying the good green Earth.

I just wonder where all of this comes from, this greed I mean, religion? Religion always seems to cause issues. Some religions like christianity believe that nature is not here for any other reason but to serve man, so basically slavery – a looming sense of anthropocentrism appears. However, not all religions think this way, many eastern religions believe that we should be one with nature, our spirits that is. Buddhism, Zaoism, early Greco-Roman religions (had many Gods referring to different natural phenomenons) believed life coexisted with nature. However, the question still remained whether or not we should attach any morals to natural systems and species.

Environmentalism will keep moving forward thanks to its early founders, and heres hoping naysayers follow suit.

Categories: climate change, Corporate, Environmental Policy, Environmentalism, Life, Priorities, Retail, Sustainability | Tags: , , , , , | Leave a comment

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.