envirofriendly-blog

[envirofriendly-blog]

Blog Entry #14: My Personal Stakeholder Position

Personal Position as an Environmental Stakeholder and Citizen

In my humble opinion,  everyone on the earth is a stakeholder in the environment. Anyone who can breathe air or drink water or uses the earth’s resources to live ought to be concerned in its well being. I am a stakeholder as a student in academia, with the knowledge that without the preservation of the environment, diseases and cancer can only become more rampant, overpopulation can only become more dangerous, and pollution can only make the earth less habitable. I am a stakeholder as woman, whose oppression matches that of the earth’s in our male dominated, patriarchal society. I am worried about animals’ well being, as I know they are sentient and feel much of what I feel, and much of that I wouldn’t wish on any being, human or not human. I am a stakeholder as a future mother, worried for the earth my children will be born into, and whether or not they’ll have the resources I have now, and a beautiful great outdoors to get to know, and get to know themselves in. My set of interests are broad, I feel extreme amounts of empathy and I want everyone to be able to live a life where they have the resources they need,  and pollution or disease isn’t more likely to happen to you or be near you because of the color of your skin or the income of your household. I am realistic, and firmly believe that humans are only open to change when it comes in small enough doses that they don’t even think it’s there. I wish we could all develop a deep ecology mindset, but I fear we must start small, educating people into realizing that all we have around us now is not forever, and we were gifted with it,  so we ought to protect it and preserve it so that more people can experience it. I see the economy booster that solar and wind energy could be. I see the deep empathy we can learn to experience not only for humans,  but for nonhumans as well. And I don’t just mean dogs and cats, I mean the non humans that don’t look anything like us. By celebrating the difference in each other, we can learn to celebrate the difference of the world around us.

Alexis Zobeideh

Dr. Van Buren

[envirofriendly-blog]

Cerro Torre, Patagonia, Argentina | by Jane Wei

[envirofriendly-blog]

A few stars above the California coast

[envirofriendly-blog]

Blog Entry #13: Ecotheology

Ecotheology

Word Count: 1342

Ecotheology is a form of constructive theology that forces on the interrelationships of religion and nature, particularly in light of environmental concerns. It stems from the premise that a relationship exists between human religious/spiritual worldviews and the degradation of nature. Not only does it explore the interaction between ecological values and the human domination of nature, but also in terms of ecosystem management in general. This is relatively new, but it is a force of religious environmentalism that has emerged represented by both statements and action of the world’s religions regarding the moral nature of the ecological crisis. Environmental protection has been explored by all major world religions including catholicism and islam. The religious motivation behind conservation is that caring for God’s Creation is an inherent part of religious life. There is even a National Religious Partnership for the Environment, which brings together a diverse alliance of faith institutions and leaders in order to bring voice and action on behalf of caring for God’s Creation. Religion is supposed to be about accepting, cherishing and caring for God’s Creation, which is why ecotheology is extremely important; it reaches religious people who aim to do better in order to fulfill what God has planned for them.

Thomas Berry was a catholic priest of the Passionist order, a cultural historian and an ecotheologian. He believed that humanity is poised to embrace a new role as a vital part of a larger, independent “communion of subjects” on earth and in the universe. In his work, he helped provide an extension of traditional Christian religion and the philosophy of God in Plato, Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas. His worldview is that nature is the manifestation of the divine, and that all things in nature are created in the image of God. He also believes that the evolution of the universe and life is a “universe story” with a spiritual dimension and ultimately authored by God. Berry claims that humankind is only one member of this created order and community, albeit a very important one. However, humans evolve with nature and are a part of it.

This leads to the principles which claim that we ought to have respect for and live in harmony with the laws, ends and workings of God’s creation. We ought to find community and universal love for and with all of God’s creatures and have stewardship of creation. The relevant criterion of moral standing is literally being created by God and being a part of the created order of nature. Religious values exhibit respect for life (which includes being pro-life), tolerance, community and celebration of God’s creation as well as non dominance and love of all of God’s creatures.

Their policies include reformist policies and some abolitionist policies. There is call for a reinterpretation of the “ten commandments” so they reflect the aforementioned principles and values and not just those in human-human relations. Berry, a religious philosopher is the stakeholder, which is cause for his philosophy in terms of the earth to be deeply rooted in religion. However, ecotheology in general does have an academic front, found in the Yale Forum on Religion and Ecology. Berry views the earth as a sacred community, and that the magnitude of the ecological crisis of our times is one which will affect us in every aspect of our human thought and action, from language, religion, morality, and economics to education, science, technology and medicine. Berry maintains that the Earth is our primary community, therefore we ought to protect it. God’s gift to us is all around us, and therefore the ecotheological conclusion is that we ought to care for the gift God gave us. You can even see the importance of nature in the bible in the story of Noah, when he needed to protect one of every animal in order to help create a new, better world. Animals were a part of that new world, as was nature.

This worldview, though obviously aiming to benefit the world, is one of the more problematic ones I’ve come across. In my opinion, it is unrealistic, as many people do not practice religion and therefore would not find any use in this. Also, since the dawn of time, members of each major world religion have found reasons to antagonize each other when their deeply held beliefs do not completely match. What happens when catholics decide that there is one way to save the environment or one aspect that needs more attention, and jewish people disagree. Does this have the potential to lead to wide scale conflict? How do atheists become involved and hold this worldview? Another aspect that I find detrimental to the success of this worldview is the pro-life aspect. There is widespread evidence which shows the connection between feminist issues and environmental issues. Family planning is one of these issues. Without family planning and access to birth control and abortion, the earth faces overpopulation, disease, and excessive poverty. It has been proven time and time again that family planning makes people and countries richer, and families smaller, which only benefits the environment. Should this worldview work, it must be realistic, and claiming to cherish the earth because it is God’s creation is another thing that, especially the catholic religion, tends to do when it's convenient to those practicing.  For example, catholicism claims that being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender is wrong in the bible. That's the same bible which claims we must all love God’s children and everyone is perfect how they are because they were created in God’s image. This hypocrisy has means to lend itself in the defense of harming the earth. In fact, Berry’s worldview calls for a reinterpretation of the “ten commandments”, which could alone cause uproar in the Church where change seems to be unwelcome to the outsider’s eye. Many people even deny climate change on religious grounds.

Maybe the problem I take with this worldview is more deeply rooted in the problem I take with religion, which is that religion often weaves itself into the argument for lack of tolerance or lack of acceptance of a group of people. Religion in theory is inclusive, in practice, can often be extremely exclusive and even grounds to deny climate change in the first place. I agree that religion is positive when it is used in day to day life of an individual or family changing their behavior or habit in order to protect and care for the earth and all of God’s creations. However I firmly believe in the separation of church and state, which bars religion from entering any governmental policy or political decisions. I believe that science and logic are more useful when it comes to arguing for the conservation of the environment, because people can be atheist and deny religion, but scientific fact that is impossible to disprove is much harder to deny, especially not without being shamed for it. Also, I tend to see it in a way that people should not need a book or almighty power to tell them what to do and how to be good. A strong moral compass is enough, regardless of faith or spiritual belief. The earth should be saved for the sake of saving the earth, but in my opinion, the best way to actually get people to make a change is by showing them factual evidence about the detriments it can cause to humanity. People often don’t understand their privilege or advocate and aim for change until the problem affects them. Though it might be a selfish standpoint, it seems to be the most effective in actually making a change. Through these changes we can afford to lean into a more earth wisdom viewpoint, which is deeply rooted in the way we view the earth. I don’t mean that it’s wrong to protect the planet because it is God’s creation, rather that it is a more unrealistic way to get the job done, and is exclusionary in who believes and follows the standpoint from a faith and spiritual perspective.

Alexis Zobeideh

Dr. Van Buren

[envirofriendly-blog]

Moraine Lake, Banff National Park, Canada | by u/celica90

[envirofriendly-blog]

Cape Disappointment State Park by Andy Feliciotti

[envirofriendly-blog]

Blog Entry #12: Biocentrism and Ecofeminism

Biocentrism and Ecofeminism

Word Count: 1944

Biocentrism and ecofeminism are two earth wisdom worldviews which, through different means, each work to reform and abolish certain human behaviorisms which can be considered unethical towards the environment and nature. Biocentrism is an ethical view which extends intrinsic moral value to all living things, not just people. It focuses on understanding how the earth works, particularly as it relates to biodiversity, and takes a firm stance in opposition to anthropocentrism, which focuses on the value of humans. Advocates of biocentrism often promote the environmental protection, animal rights and biodiversity. Ecofeminism, on the other hand, is the term that links feminism with ecology and synthesizes the two together, arguing that if each is to work,  both must incorporate the other. Feminism is defined as the theory of social, political and economic equality of the sexes, and ecology represents the political movement that seeks to protect the environment, especially from pollution. Ecofeminism relates the oppression and domination of all “subordinate” groups such as women, people of color, children, the poor and the oppression and domination of nature including land, animals, water, air, and all else that is considered a part of nature.

The term biocentrism encompasses all environmental ethics that “extend the status of moral object from human beings to all living things in nature.” One major contributor to the worldview of biocentrism is Paul Taylor, a philosopher who was best known for his work in the field of environmental ethics. He created the theory of biocentric egalitarianism which is essentially biocentrism. Taylor’s biocentrism is an extension of traditional community-oriented ethics and deontological “respect for life” ethics or Christian “respect for life” ethics. He extends them to the notion of a moral community that covers the whole community of life on the planet, that is humans, plants and animals (the entire biotic community). The four main pillars of a biocentric outlook are:

Human and all other species are members of Earth’s community.

All species are part of a system of interdependence.

All living organisms pursue their own “good” in their own ways.

Human beings are not inherently superior to other living things.

Taylor claims that each of the members of the biotic community ought to be respected as an end in itself. Taylor believes that animal rights are too narrow and still a kind of anthropocentrism. He presents a radical egalitarian “pro-life” ethic that extends intrinsic value to all living things. However that intrinsic value does not extend to entire ecosystems, only to the individual members. This worldview stems from evolutionary biology and biological sense of ecology. It claims that homo sapiens are only one evolutionary member of  the earth’s community of life. All members of the earth’s community of life, including homo sapiens are interdependent and inter-relational, and each member is a unique and perspectival “teleological center of life” occupying its ecological “niche”. Taylor claims that homo sapiens have the ability of “empathy” or “selfishness” and the ability to project themselves into and understand the perspectives and interests of other species. The traditional anthropocentric claim that because we are “rational”, humans are morally superior to other species is scientifically groundless, the worldview argues, and it derives  from species narcissism.

The principles of biocentrism include community with and respect for all life from humans to microorganisms, empathy, cooperation, tolerance, harmony, balance, sharing and mutual accommodation rather than species narcissism. Biocentrism believes that every living thing has a good of its own and should never be treated as a means only, and that it is our duty to respect the inherent worth of those beings. The stakeholder in this is Taylor, the academic philosopher, and he believes in strong reformist policies which reflect the aforementioned principles.  He believes that we should reflect these principles in our lives in professional areas such as urban planning, construction, business, agriculture and scientific research. Rather than firmly abolishing specific practices, biocentrism is focused on changing the behaviors of people and corporations in order to make a positive, selfless impact on the world. Humans as a species have a history of being selfish, which seems to make it extremely difficult to put these ideals into practice. However, there is also a variety of moral dilemmas which come from this worldview. These dilemmas are called the principle of self-defense, the principle of proportionality, the principle of minimum wrong, the principle of distributive justice and the principle of restitutive justice. Each of these principles provide examples in which the selfishness of humans can seem justified, for example, the ethically permissible moment in which moral agents can defend themselves against dangerous organisms. However, lacking a hierarchical scale to make decision, biocentrism leaves a lot of room for debates of what is morally permissible under these clauses, and arguments for things that may not be very selfless. Biocentrism is focused on creating a selfless society, which in turn, protects and fights for all living beings on this earth. If this is possible however, is another story.

Ecofeminism, on the other hand, relates the oppression and domination of all “subordinate” groups, such as women, people of color, children, the poor, to the oppression and domination of nature, including animals, land, water, air, etc. Ecofeminism insists that feminism and environmentalism are inherently connected, and ecofeminist work often applies feminist analysis to environmental issues. This idea was introduced and developed by Karen J. Warren, who is an author, scholar and philosopher who has written exclusively on environmental ethics, critical thinking and ecofeminism. She views ecofeminism as a “quilt” that is flexible and evolving, including minimal conditions that an ethical narrative has to fulfill if it is to be part of the “quilt” which include:

No “isms” (sexism, anthropocentrism, etc)

Ecofeminist ethics is contextualist (The action or expression can only be understood relative to the context)

Ecofeminists look at oppression. There’s a link between sexism and speciesism. Speciesism, defined by Peter Singer, is the oppression of one species by another. The link between oppression of women and marginalized groups and animals can easily be found in linguistics. Derogatory terms towards women often include link to an animal. For example, the words “bitch”, “cow”, “old bat”. A well known derogatory term towards men is “pussy” which incorporates both femininity and a link to an animal. Linguistic association with animals has also been a method of demeaning Jewish people and people of color. Even in the non derogatory term “Mother Nature”, nature is associated with femininity, and in Western Civilization, femininity is often considered weaker and inferior, especially since we live in a patriarchal society. Ecofeminism focuses on dismantling the patriarchal/hierarchical logic of domination which states as follows:

Without the two assumptions that humans are morally superior to (at least some) non-humans, and that superiority justifies subordination, all one has is some difference between humans and some nonhumans. This is true even if that difference is given in terms of superiority. Thus, it is the logic of denomination,  which is the bottom line in ecofeminist discussions of oppression. Ecofeminists argue that, at least in Western societies, the oppressive conceptual framework which sanctions the twin dominations of women and nature is a patriarchal one characterized by all three features of an oppressive conceptual framework. Many ecofeminists claim that, historically, within at least the dominant Western culture, a patriarchal conceptual framework has sanctioned the following argument B:

(BI) Women are identified with nature and the realm of the physical; men are identified with the "human" and the realm of the mental.

(B2) Whatever is identified with nature and the realm of the physical is inferior to ("below") whatever is identified with the "human" and the realm of the mental: or, conversely, the latter is superior to ("above") the former.

(B3) Thus, women are inferior to ("below") men; or, conversely, men are superior to ("above") women.

(B4) For any X and Y, if X is superior to Y, then X is justified in subordinating Y. (the logic of domination)

(B5) Thus, men are justified in subordinating women.

The main patriarchal moral hierarchy is male-oriented rational mind vs. non-rational or reason-lacking matter/life, where nature and woman are identified with non-rational matter/life. This logic allows for justification of subordination  of both women and nature.

Ecofeminism is centered on respecting difference. Ecofeminism is an Environmental Wisdom worldview, which views nature as having intrinsic moral value.  The Worldview of Ecofeminism is the fact of difference between men and women and between all human things, and the fact of difference between human beings and the rest of nature. This is important because Warren’s extension of feminism and postmodern ethics of “Welcoming the Other” argues that if feminism (in regards to the respect of women and the difference between women and men) is to actually work, it must be ecological, and vice versa. Essentially, one cannot exist without the other.  The principles and values of ecofeminism include welcoming the other, community in difference, loving, caring, respect of differences between humans and nonhumans, and is opposed to the aforementioned hierarchical logic of domination. The rules and policies of ecofeminism are focused on respecting the differences between humans and nonhumans. Ecofeminism calls for strong reformist policies and some abolitionist policies that reflect the above principles and values. Some ecofeminists even call for an end to pet keeping because to be a pet is to have all of one’s life decisions controlled by someone else; when and what to eat, how to act, whom to socialize with, whether or not to reproduce. If the situation were offered to humans, they argue, we’d call it slavery. Any form of oppression, marginalization, exploitation, etc is considered harmful. Abolition of factory farming, hunting, experimentation is necessary. One interesting concept is the cosmetics industry, which often experiments on animals, and exists solely to capitalize on the learned insecurities that women have. This shows a direct correlation between environmental and feminist issues. Ecofeminism offers a wide, comprehensive scope. Ecofeminism is not subject to only women or to people who identify as feminists, rather it is a way of acknowledging that the environment has been continuously exploited and marginalized. Environmental issues and women's issues have direct correlation and have negative effects  on each other. Feminism and environmental activism are essentially fighting for similar things, to end the exploitation, abuse,  marginalization of women/people of color/ the environment. This worldview, in practical action, rather than just in theory, is more narrow. Though it is a way of approaching all environmental issues, there are specific instances where the correlation between ecology and feminism is more obvious, such as in the case of overpopulation. The reformist and abolition policies are both logical and possible, as well as presented in other worldviews, however in ecofeminism it is ought to be reviewed case by case.

Some questions people may have about ecofeminism include:

Why are most Env. Studies and Science majors today women?

There  is a widely held belief and argument that women are more likely to be nurturing than men.

Do biological females subscribe to the male patriarchal mindset/male gender values?

Patriarchal mindset is learned through society, and some women subscribe while others do not.

Do women, along with minorities and the poor, often suffer disproportionately from environmental problems like deforestation in developing countries (subsistence households), overuse of pesticides in agriculture (migrant female farm laborers), hormone-mimicing chemical pollution (breast cancer), indoor household air pollution, etc.?

Yes, such as in the case of environmental racism. Women make less than men to the  dollar, are more likely to live in poverty. Women have less rights than men in many countries globally. Women who are homemakers are more exposed to the above listed dangers.

Alexis Zobeideh

Dr. Van Buren

[envirofriendly-blog]

Three Young Raccoons | by Jim Vansant

[envirofriendly-blog]

Jasper National Park, Canada

[envirofriendly-blog]

Alberta Falls, Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado

[envirofriendly-blog]

Blog Entry #11: Animal Rights

Animal Rights

Word Count: 1225

In the fight for environmental presentation, activists often draw attention to animal rights. Although the Planetary Management and Stewardship worldviews do not consider animals and plants to have inherent moral value, earth wisdom and deep ecology do, and argue for the protection of animals as they have intrinsic value the same way that humans do. However, a continuing debate for environmental philosophers questions how much value animals have in comparison to humans. Donald VanDeVeer approaches this question with a philosophy called Hierarchical Animal Rights in contrast of Singer’s Utilitarian Animal Rights Ethics and Regan’s Kantian, Duty-Based Animal Rights Ethics. Although each of these viewpoints maintain respect for animals and agree that animals are “sentient”, they approach the “best solution” uniquely.

VanDeVeer’s Animal Rights Ethics, which include Hierarchism and a mix of abolitionism and reformism, 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 the ethical conflicts in which we must make difficult choices between human and nonhuman interests. Singer and Regan agree to abolish all farming, consumption of meat, experimentation on animals for scientific, medical and product safety reasons, circuses, rodeos, zoos, hunting, fishing, and trapping for food for recreational reasons and killing wild animals for commercial products.  Although VanDeVeer agrees with a multitude of  these concepts, he believes that some of these practices, such as farming and animal experimentation should be reformed. VanDeVeer agrees that animals are sentient, can feel pleasure and pain and have a certain subjectivity, but his distinction is found in his explanation of the “two-factor” position. His “two-factor” position is used in order to weigh ethical conflicts in favor of human interests and is thus in some sense a hierarchical position as it places the intrinsic moral value of humans above that of animals. The “two-factor” position argues that in weighing our duty to sentient beings in ethical conflicts, it’s morally relevant to consider the first factor of what types of interests are in conflict. Type one is the basic interest, which basically means that without the being cannot function adequately or at all, such as food, water, and oxygen. Type two is the serious interest, that without which the being can still function, though with difficulty and at serious cost to its well-being, such as medicine for non-life threatening illnesses or meat eating. The third type of interest is that which without the being can still function adequately, such as perfume or fur coats or practices which involve torturing. The second factor is the degrees of sentience of the parties in conflict. This pertains to the levels of psychological capacities such as self-awareness, memory, foresight, social consciousness, and life-span which play a role in determining how much pain and pleasure each of the parities can actually experience. But how do we measure this? And how do we actively justify anything other than the basic interest of humans whilst maintaining that animals have intrinsic moral value. Though a serious interest includes meat eating, veganism is a viable option and those who live their lives as vegans do not show any signs of depletion of their well being. In fact, it can be argued, in this specific case, that meat eating is a learned behavior, and as humans can get their necessary proteins and nutrients from other sources than animals, there is potential to grow up vegan with no risk to one’s health or well being.

How do we measure sentience? How is it possible to know how much pain and pleasure a certain animal has. We may see a cow or pig writhe and squeal in pain as they are tortured and butchered in factory farms, but how do we tell the pain of other animals. Do we value the pain and sentience of animals we need (such as for food) over that of animals which we do not  (such as turtles)?  Humans react to visual or audio examples of pain. If we can see an animal is obviously in pain, we are more likely going to try and help it. However, VanDeVeer’s abolition and reform of specific policies are ones that I personally agree with. We ought to abolish puppy mills, circuses and animal torture and reform farms to being solely organic and humane and only testing on animals when completely scientifically and medically necessary with as much focus on maintaining pain-free practices.

The question of which animals are more important than others can be questioned by philosopher J. Baird Callicott, who argues that some animals have more value due to their role in maintaining and improving a specific ecosystem. Callicott believes that everyone should be good ecological citizens. He also maintains an ecological hierarchy, however he also goes as far as to place the importance of some animals above that of others. Calicott essentially maintains that some animals, especially wild keystone species, have more moral weight than other animals, such as domesticated animals used in factory farming, experimentation, the pet industry, or even human animals in some extreme cases. Callicott also believes that the liberation of  billions of domesticated animals from captivity and letting them go in the wild could do more harm than good as it has the potential to destroy natural ecosystems through over-population, over-feeding and out competing.

In my personal belief, I believe that selfish culture is what motivates the hierarchical judgement of animals. With the ability to distinguish moral value between different animals, humans will selfishly gravitate towards putting less value on the animals that we are more in contact with, such as domesticated animals. Though Callicott’s assessment that their liberation would potentially damage ecosystems holds true, this does not make their moral value any less so, because the entire reason that domesticated animals exist is because humans domesticated them. I agree with VanDeVeer’s policies which only involved the endangerment or harm of animals in specific cases such as medical testing and organic animal farming. This is admittedly selfish, as a totally selfish culture would employ veganism and remove any animal testing. However, as Callicott mentions, completely transitioning into omnivores as human has potential for overpopulation and other issues. I agree also with the critique that this is all a hidden form of humanism as it only fully acknowledges the moral standing of highly sentient animals that are psychologically and socially like us or that physically look like us.  I also agree with the argument that as these worldviews are focused more on animals, they ignores broader environmental issues such as global warming and pollution, because being an animal rights advocate does not mean you are an environmental health advocate. In agreement with deep ecology, I believe our selfish culture is what needs changing. However, I agree with VanDerVeer's plan to help animals until we reach a selfless state as a society.

Question: By placing more intrinsic moral value on certain animals, doesn't that just allow humans to be selfish and justify certain practices and behaviors that we don’t want to change by just saying “Oh, well, that specific animal has less value so it’s okay”.

How do we determine which animals have more or less value? Is it due to their sentience or their use to humans/ the ecosystem.

Alexis Zobeideh

Dr. Van Buren

[envirofriendly-blog]

Arctic Wolves | by Mária Kristínková

[envirofriendly-blog]

Meiringen, Switzerland | by David Birri

[envirofriendly-blog]

Blog  Entry #10: Singer and Regan: Animal Rights Ethics

Singer and Regan: Animal Rights Ethics

Word Count: 1145

Animal rights ethics is a multifaceted category of ethics. Each viewpoint tends to focus on protecting and increasing the wellbeing of animals, however different the approach may be. A prime example of this is the varying philosophies of Peter Singer and Tom Regan. Peter Singer approaches animal rights with a worldview inspired by John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism. On the other hand, Regan takes inspiration from Kant’s duty based ethics. Both focus on egalitarianism and abolitionism and agree that taking into consideration “animal species membership” is just as “morally irrelevant” to the most reasonable principle of ethical life as  “race (human subspecies) membership”, “gender membership”, “cultural membership” or “religions membership”. Though they work it out with different ethical frameworks, they both seem to agree.

Peter Singer is an Australian moral philosopher. He specializes in applied ethics and approaches ethical issues from a secular, utilitarian perspective. Utilitarianism, developed by John Stuart Mill, focuses on the pain and pleasure of the involved parties. The main belief held for utilitarianism is the greatest happiness principle, which explains that what makes an action ethical is based on how much pleasure it creates and pain it removes from the greatest number of people. Singer provides an extension of the traditional utilitarian ethics to apply to animals and rather than use the word “people” his version would apply to “living beings”. His worldview states that both human animals and nonhuman animals (down to the level of reptiles, excluding insects, etc) are sentient and therefore capable of consciously experiencing pleasure and pain as well as other emotions like fear, joy, happiness and suffering. Sentient animals have certain “subjectivity” and  “personality” and are not mere objects or things. Another aspect of Singer’s worldview is that scientifically, animals have the requisite physiology and brain for conscious “sentience”. Nonhuman animals also communicate their pleasure and pain to us in the same way that humans do, especially those humans without higher linguistic capacities, such as a baby, by making expressive sounds and body movements. The principle that support’s Singer’s worldview is the maximization of pleasure/happiness and minimization of pain/suffering, which is the main principle of utilitarian ethics. Singer wishes to achieve equality of treatment of human and non-human sentient beings by having equal human and non-human rights to life, liberty, habitat, property, social life, nourishment and pursuit of happiness. According to Singer, the only relevant criterion is that the living being is sentient. The rules of Singer’s worldview is that thou shalt not kill and that beings ought  to show moral respect to each other equally. This means that people should not kill animals for food, which leads us to the abolitionist policies that can help us reach the greatest amount of pleasure for all beings. Singer aims to abolish experimentation on animals (medical or otherwise), factory farming and traditional, organic farming, consumption of meat, killing of wild animals for commercial products, hunting, fishing or trapping for food or recreation, circuses, zoos and comparable practices with domestic or wild animals. Singer is the son of Jewish holocaust survivors, is a social activist and philanthropist, which can explain his aim to end all killing or suffering of any being so long as it is sentient.

Inhumane Treatment of Animals (Above)

Tom Regan was an American philosopher who specialized in animal rights theory. He wrote numerous books on the philosophy of animal rights, and uses Kantian ethics to defend the rights of animals. Regan provides an extension of the “deontological” (duty based)  and rights-based ethics of Immanuel Kant. Kantian ethics is centered around the categorical imperative, which can be explained three ways. The first aspect of the categorical imperative is to act as if the maxim of your action could become a universal law.  The second aspect of the categorical imperative is to act so you treat humans never only as a means, but always also as an end. Finally, the third aspect of the categorical imperative is to act as if you had autonomy in a kingdom of ends. Regan wishes to apply the categorical imperative to how we treat nonhuman animals as well. He criticises Singer’s utilitarian ethics because he thinks it sees human beings as a “means to an end”, namely the end of individual or collective “happiness/pleasure”. He also criticizes Singer’s utilitarian logic as it could still potentially allow for the mistreatment of animals and violating their basic rights whenever that would allow for the greatest collective happiness of human and nonhuman animals, such as hunting overpopulated animals. Regan’s worldview agrees that human and nonhuman animals are both sentient and that nonhuman animals have specific psychological capacities and can experience pain, joy, and suffering as humans can. He also agrees that due to their subjectivity and psychological complexity, they are not mere things and have “dignity”. The principles of this worldview proclaim that we have a duty to respect the dignity of nonhuman animals and that we ought to essentially apply the categorical imperative to nonhuman animals as well. Regan holds the values of equal human and nonhuman rights to life, liberty, habitat/property, social life, nourishment and pursuit of happiness, and wishes to abolish the same practices as Singer.

Though these two worldviews achieve practically the same outcome in terms of policy and abolishing certain things, their ethical frameworks are extremely different. In my personal belief the Utilitarian argument allows for justification of harmful practices in the way mentioned earlier. Kantian ethics does not leave much room for validation of any arguably immoral practices. Though abolishing all of the earlier mentioned practices can be difficult and even unrealistic, to achieve what each of these philosophers want, Kantian ethics is more successful in argument. I believe as a whole, society is more accepting and reactive with smaller, gradual change than total destruction of a certain way of life, and unfortunately, as an inherently selfish species, we do have a tendency to be more likely to justify harm to nonhuman beings if it brings us pleasure. We do that already by eating animals and animal products. However, if we made a small change to our diets by slowly removing meat from it, we could be taking a large step forward in eradicating inhumane treatment of nonhuman animals. By othering these animals and solely focusing on the difference between “them” and “us” we allow for the devaluing of life and acceptance of tortuous and immoral practices. This behavior even causes us to alienate our fellow man and “dehumanize” them in order to justify immoral practices like genocide. You can even see it in the linguistics, to say something is less than human is to claim it is inferior and does not deserve to be treated in a fair, humane way. We ought to appreciate and celebrate the difference between human and nonhuman, rather than use it to justify wrongdoing, torture, and murder.

Alexis Zobeideh

Dr. Van Buren

[envirofriendly-blog]

Ocelot

[envirofriendly-blog]

Blog Entry #9: Earthlings

Word Count: 1248

Earthlings

The question of if animals have moral standing is one which has long been debated and remains to be seen as a multifaceted question with many complex answers. There are a plethora of different worldviews which each take a stance on whether or not animals have moral intrinsic value and whether or not we as a society should adopt reformist or abolitionist worldviews. In order to develop a personal worldview on this topic, however, we must first look at how both individually and as a society we treat other animals, and whether or not we maintain interspecific justice. Scientifically, we know for a fact that animals can feel joy, excitement, suffering, sadness and pain, just like humans do. However, our lack of concern for animals just because we don’t consider them “rational beings” is atrocious. The human habit of oppressing and dominating non human beings needs to change. This behavior and thirst for dominance even leaks into how humans treat other humans, through the dehumanization of the “other”. This is morally wrong, and we ought to all take a hard look at the nasty truth about our animal footprint and what we can do to minimize or eradicate it.

Each of the different worldviews (Planetary Management, Stewardship and Environmental Wisdom) approach human treatment of animals differently. Planetary management is the worldview which supports the status quo industrial treatment of animals in factory farming and animal experimentation . The Stewardship worldview supports animal welfare, which is focused on the well-being of animals. These standards are constantly reviewed and debated. The Earth Wisdom worldview supports animal rights, which is the concept that some or all non-human animals are entitled to the possession of their own lives and that their most basic interests, such as the need to avoid suffering, should be afforded the same consideration as similar interests of human beings. Now, though ideally we ought to all work towards animal rights, to those who believe that animals are inferior because they lack “reason” this worldview might be a hard sell. This is why I believe it is  realistic to begin with the stewardship worldview, where we work for the wellbeing of animals and focus on changing our inhumane practices as a society. It is definitely easier to make smaller changes as a society rather than huge changes which have the ability to negatively affect millions of people’s lives. Much of the time, animal friendly alternatives to common goods are hard to find and often more expensive, which puts impoverished families at an unfair advantage, as many cannot afford to prioritize the wellbeing of animals over the well being of their own families.

However, we do have the information to make a change. The Humane Society’s Meat-Eating Reduce, Refine and Replace Program provides multiple alternatives to minimize our culture's current animal consumption rate. This program specifically speaks to the 10 billion land animals that are raised and killed for food in the United States each year. The humane society writes of how animals experience much of what humans do; joy, frustration, pain, boredom and suffering, and offers a three part plan to help increase the joy and diminish the pain of these animals. By choosing less humane products and reducing our consumption of animal products by 50%, we have the potential to spare approximately 5 billion animals a lifetime of suffering. Another way to help is to refine our diet and choose organic or cage and crate-free animal products rather than conventional factory farm products. The last section of the pamphlet explains how we can replace animal products with readily available vegetarian and vegan alternatives, which provide us with health benefits, meet the recommendations for our daily necessary nutrients and even prevent and treat certain diseases.  Not only are each of these options highly plausible, but they make it so much easier to diminish the pain of these animals without making extreme changes to our daily life. This allows us to take a small step towards being a more selfless species as a whole, especially knowing how animals are treated in factory farms, puppy mills and the other inhumane holding of animals for food and breeding purposes.

The film Earthlings is a 2005 American documentary film about humanity’s use of other animals as pets, food, clothing, entertainment and scientific research. The film uses undercover cameras to chronicle the day-to-day practices of some of the largest industries in the world, all of which rely on animals. The Humane Society provides a detailed account of the inhumane practices which occur in these different industries in their Welfare of Animals in the Meat, Egg, and Dairy Industries Report. This report states the different instances of animal cruelty which we can see with our own eyes in the hidden camera footage of the film Earthlings. The report states that of approximately 11 billion animals killed annually in the United States, 86% of them are birds, which when raised for meat are confined to grower houses, which are commonly artificially lit, force-ventilated, and completely barren except for the litter material on the floor and long  rows of feeders and drinkers.  The most significant assault on their welfare is fast growth, states the report, due to the fact that the poultry industry uses selective breeding  to produce birds whose bodies “are on the verge of structural collapse”. Pigs are customarily put through intense consecutive cycles of impregnation, giving birth, and nursing, all while intensively confined. They’re often kept in stalls during their pregnancies, which has proven extremely detrimental to their health as it curtails movement and social interaction and fails to provide dirt or hay to satisfy their instincts to use their snouts to root for food. Pigs raised for meat undergo mutilations including castration and tail docking without any pain relief. Cattle also deal with a share of the suffering. Most cattle raised for beef are castrated, dehorned and branded, which are painful procedures often performed without any anesthesia. All of these different procedures cause a great amount of suffering on the animal, which we can see clearly as their method of expressing pain is extremely similar to our own as humans.

Factory Farm (above) vs. Organic Farm (below)

For most people, watching animals express pain is extremely difficult. This becomes extremely useful in advertising against animal abuse and for vegetarianism or veganism. Often, clips of hidden camera footage like those used in the film Earthlings, are used in advertisements to essentially appeal to the emotional side of people and guilt them into changing their lifestyle, if it is one of animal product consumption. This transfers to documentaries and films like the aforementioned film Earthlings, which shows how in the anthropocene we have become the dominant animal species  growing out other animal species, harming them, and driving them to extinction (biocide and zoocide). The film also presents empirical video data on the abuse of animals in factory farms and  pet industry, and presents a non-anthropocentric “animal rights” position based on Peter Singer’s and Tom Regan’s writings.

Advertising by showing the  pain of animals is extremely effective. Through being educated about the harm we cause animals and the environment, we are more likely to aim to make a difference in our daily lives. As a society we tend not to change our actions until long after we’ve seen the negative results of those actions. By seeing the harm that all of these inhumane practices bring, we are more likely to work towards a more safe, harm free alternative.

http://www.walmarttorturesanimals.com

Alexis Zobeideh

Dr. Van Buren

[envirofriendly-blog]

Wild beauty | by Olga Gladysheva