In his latest post, Bryan asked the question, "If you were start to fix the pet industry, where would you start?"
Bryan brings up points like putting animals in good homes and fixing problems with breeding, and to me these are the places to start. One thing that can be done to start is to find and eliminate any illegal puppy mills, where animals are bred in the masses and disease runs rampant. In these conditions, animals are kept in cramped and dirty quarters, with little to no fresh food and water, and there are too many animals. Finding these and getting rid of them would be a positive step in the beginning.
As for fixing breeding problems, there are simple steps that can be taken. Spaying and neutering animals ensure that they do not create unwanted or uncared for pets. Yes, I know this can cause pain in an animal, but overall spaying and neutering can extend an animal's lifetime. Also, education about this is essential. I remember watching a show on Animal Planet called Pit Boss, all about an organization run by Shorty Rossi. He runs a talent agency and a Pit Bull rescue all in one. In one episode, he was called into a neighborhood by a fourteen-year-old boy who was concerned because an un-neutered male would escape from his yard and wander around the neighborhood. This dog had impregnated many dogs, including the dog the boy owned. Not to mention that the male was also the female's daughter. In this case, Shorty and his employees went into the neighborhood to talk to the owner. They informed him about the problems of not neutering his dog and told him about a clinic where the dog would be neutered for free. They also went around the neighborhood and talked to the people who lived there about the same points. The people were all open and recipient about what the group was talking about. In the end, the owner did agree to have his dog neutered. The reason he hadn't before was because he saw it as a sign of masculinity and toughness for his dog. (Of course, I may not be remembering that bit entirely accurately, so if anyone else has seen this, please let me know.)
Overall, I think these are good places to start, and education about these and other issues is especially important. The more people know and learn, the more something will be done about it. So now my question is, do you think the reason others don't spay or neuter an animal is because they also see it as a symbol for something?
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Consciousness versus Unconsciousness
In our readings, there has been a large debate over whether animals are conscious or not. Some have the view that they are conscious, conscious of what they want, conscious of their pain, yet others knock these arguments aside by saying that animals may have wants and feel pain, but they are not aware of this and so are not conscious. Bermond describes consciousness as "knowing that you know," yet I agree with the point brought up in class today that this sounds more like self-consciousness than consciousness in general.
In the essay we read, Lynch argues that humans and animals are conscious, yet their levels of consciousness may vary, and uses the examples of driving and having a headache to describe his views. Through this, Lynch conveys his beliefs that there are varying levels of consciousness. Yet at the end of Lynch's argument, there is another two pages written by Jane Duran, agreeing with his statements and yet pointing out what she sees as flaws in his argument. According to Duran, the only degrees of consciousness are being awake (being conscious) or being asleep (being unconscious).
Reading that really struck a chord in me. I understood where she was coming from and, to me, it makes a lot of sense. I understand what everyone else is saying when they use the terms "conscious" and "unconscious", yet there are so many different ways to use a word. As we have seen in class, sometimes we have to be careful with the ways in which we use words in our arguments.
Having said all of that, I am curious. How would you define consciousness and unconsciousness? How would you define the terms in the case of animal ethics?
In the essay we read, Lynch argues that humans and animals are conscious, yet their levels of consciousness may vary, and uses the examples of driving and having a headache to describe his views. Through this, Lynch conveys his beliefs that there are varying levels of consciousness. Yet at the end of Lynch's argument, there is another two pages written by Jane Duran, agreeing with his statements and yet pointing out what she sees as flaws in his argument. According to Duran, the only degrees of consciousness are being awake (being conscious) or being asleep (being unconscious).
Reading that really struck a chord in me. I understood where she was coming from and, to me, it makes a lot of sense. I understand what everyone else is saying when they use the terms "conscious" and "unconscious", yet there are so many different ways to use a word. As we have seen in class, sometimes we have to be careful with the ways in which we use words in our arguments.
Having said all of that, I am curious. How would you define consciousness and unconsciousness? How would you define the terms in the case of animal ethics?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)