Ethical Examples in Modern Media

Forgive me for sounding like a total dork here, but as we were sitting in class the other day and talking about the "yuck factor", I couldn't help but note some similarities between what we are talking about now and two anime series, Fullmetal Alchemist and Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood. Both of the series have the same premise, but from what I have heard Brotherhood is closer to the manga than is the original Fullmetal Alchemist.

In the series we have the two brothers, Edward and Alphonse Elric. They lost their mother to sickness, and so they made a plan to use alchemy to bring their mother back to life, by using human transmutation. Their father is an alchemist, but he has been out of the picture for quite some time. After years of studying alchemy (which does exist in their world; it's a world parallel to ours) they make the attempt, but it goes horribly wrong. A portal to another dimension opens, reaching out for a toll because, in alchemy, there is a law of equivalent exchange: you cannot create something out of nothing. At first, Ed loses his leg below the knee, and his brother is taken and rendered apart. In their place is a creature, maybe female, that is supposed to be human but is only human in the barest of senses: it is made out of blood, with sunken areas where the eyes and mouth would be. Viewers do not see what happens to this creature, but in desperation, Ed crawls over to a suit of armor and knocks it over. (When a state official goes to investigate after all of these events, viewers do see a dark stain on the floor.) At the cost of his arm, he is able to rend Alphonse's soul to the armor. From then on, any time anyone encounters the brothers without knowing them already, if they find out about Al, that he's not just wearing the suit of armor, they recoil because, to them, it is unnatural.

This made me think greatly of transgenesis, taking genes from one species and transferring it to another, like with taking Al's soul and binding it to the suit of armor. Also, how everyone recoiled from him definitely reminded me of the so-called "yuck factor".

My question now is: Are there other parallels between what we've been discussing in class and what has been discussed here?

Growth Hormones

Now that we're talking about Bio-Tech, I thought this would be a good time to post this blog. On the sides of certain food products nowadays, there will be disclaimers of "No growth hormones have been used in this product..." The places I've seen them the most are on Ben & Jerry's ice cream and on the side of Odwalla bottles. With so many foods being produced with growth hormones or some kind of hormones, so it's nice to see some companies sticking to natural products. Of course, some of these claims may not be true. I was told of a story with Snapple Apple by my friend, and how the bottle claims that there were real apples in the drink. Yet when he looked at the ingredients, there were no apples in sight.

My question now is: How many of these "no hormones" claims can be believed from these big companies?

Animals as Property?: A Response to Jake

Jake asks: Does calling animals property propogate the propensity to abuse animals?

I made the point once in class, as Jake does in his post, that calling animals property gives humans the idea that they can do whatever they want with said animals. The idea that an animal is property may mean to some that the animal needs to be taken care of, based solely on the idea that, "This is mine." Most people take care of the things they own, but what about people with short tempers? They can kick or kill an animal and use the claim that, "It's my property." Any sane person would know that this is wrong, and this sentiment does not hold up well in court. Calling animals property would, I feel, hurt animals more than it helps them. It devalues them more so than they already are by some.

My question now is: How do we fix this devaluation of animals? What can be done about it?

Compassion

The point was made the other day by several of us in class that religion alone was not a compelling argument for animal ethics because not everyone follows the same religion and some people don't follow religion at all. Yet I've noticed that many different religions still teach the same basic principles, and from the readings we have done plus knowledge I've gathered on my own, compassion towards others and towards animals seems to be a key theme (though I do acknowledge that some of it depends on your interpretation of certain texts).

Compassion is something that just about anyone could understand. In its bare sense, I take it to mean to be kind to others and treat them with respect. A lot of humans don't necessarily think about treating animals this way, and that is where a lot of problems surrounding the treatment of animals and the debates in animal ethics come in.

My question now is: Would it be possible to spread animal ethics to those who do not follow religion based on compassion, or is this idea still limited by religion?

Lifestyle Dogs: A Response to Becky

Becky asks the question: Because animals give us so many health benifits does that give us a reason to breed dogs so that there is at a right dog for everyone's lifestlye? That is to say, different dogs are specifically designed for a certain lifestyle.

We've discussed in class how purebred dogs have health problems because of inbreeding. Bad genes are passed along as well as the desired genes, causing many problems like hip dysplasia in larger dogs and breathing and upper respiratory problems in the brachycephalic dogs like pugs. In the beginning, dogs were bred to fit certain lifestyles. One small dog breed were kept in the sleeves of Chinese nobles to warm hands. Dogs like border collies and shelties were bred for hunting. Dachsunds were bred to go into burrows made by animals to hunt them out while bulldogs were bred to fight bears. Nowadays, there are dogs suited for certain lifestyles. Small, low-maintenence dogs are best suited for people living in apartments while an energetic dog like a border collie or a greyhound does best in places where they can run around and get a lot of exercise.

Long story short, dogs have already been bred to suit our needs and now it is a matter of choosing a dog that bests fit our lifestyles. If someone wants to get a dog for their health, a calm and friendly dog such as a labrador or a golden retreiver might be best.

My question now is: Why are animals such as cats and dogs the ones highlighted when it comes to having animals for health reasons when there are so many other wonderful and calm animals that can be kept as well? In this regard, I mean keeping a ferret, a rabbit, or a bird, to name a few examples.

Cats and Dogs

I have had three cats and one dog in my lifetime, and I am a fan of both. Curious, I looked up how long cats and dogs have been domesticated and I found that dogs have been domesticated for about 15,000 years and cats have been domesticated for about 9,500 years. With all of the talks about pets in class, I thought this would be a good topic to discuss. As has been noted in our various discussions, dogs are more dependent than cats. If a dog were to try and survive in the wild, it would have a harder time on its own than a cat. Cats have more of an independent streak and would be able to fend for themselves better in the wild than a dog. It is possible that a part of cats' independence is because they have not been domesticated for as long as dogs, but it is hard to say for sure.

My question now is this: What makes dogs so different from cats that they need to depend on us, while cats do not?

The Practice of Petkeeping: A Response to Hallie

In response to my post, Hallie asks the question: If petkeeping does need to be eradicated, what is the best way to begin that process? Should we do it all at once, or take steps toward the goal?

I have answered a similar question before about slaughterhouses, and my answer is the same. In the practice of petkeeping, small steps should be taken to eradication. Imagine if petkeeping were to be ended tomorrow: suddenly there would be millions, if not billions, of pets without a home. Pet owners would be distraught at having to give up the beloved members of their family. (The ones that care, anyway.) Shelters would suddenly be swarmed or ended, because there is nowhere else for the pets to go. What would happen to them? A lot of them can't survive on their own, and there is no one to care for them because petkeeping has ended. (Granted, this picture may be a bit extreme, but it does drive my point home.)

Another alternative would be to outlaw dogs and cats and any other pets from having any more young. This would allow people to enjoy the pets they have now, allow more pets to be adopted or bought, yet after this generation of pets there would be no more. Hopefully it would also cut back on the number of stray animals. Again, it would be an extreme shift for humans. Humans who enjoy the company of their animals would suddenly have no more and have no means by which to bring another pet into their family. Because humans and animals have lived together for so long, what happens to one will definitely affect the other, which is why I am inserting humans into this argument.

Tackling the different facets of the pet industry one at a time seems like the most rational solution to me. Someone made the point in class about outlawing puppy mills. Getting rid of the illegal ones is a good start. The illegal ones are where the most problems occur; everything is overcrowded and filthy, there is no room and the animals are all infested with parasites, and there is little to no food or water. It's disgusting. That is a practice that defintely needs to be stopped. There are so many directions to go in from there.

I now have two questions for you:
1) What would your next step be in eradicating the practice of petkeeping?
2) If we were to eliminate zoos and aquariums, how should we go about it?