A Quote Misattributed to Mark Twain

"The whole principle is wrong; it's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't eat steak." - Not Mark Twain

The quote above, commonly misattributed to Mark Twain, is in response to to censorship. Like the quote suggests, it does seem true that the argument for censorship boils down to its enforcement to prevent the moral, or other sort of, corruption of minors. There are socially accepted views which should be established in minors and there are those that should be kept from them. In this day and age I doubt there is much support for moral censorship in regard to adults.

It seems that there are two child rearing philosophies that would put parents on one or another side of the child censorship debate. One was already sketched above, that children need to be protected from deviant views. The other, which could be cautiously deemed the 'liberal' approach, assumes that people can think from a vantage point beyond particular belief systems, and should develop this impartial mind set. In contrast with the first view on child rearing, it would actually encourage a child to explore diverse belief systems so he can become intelligently impartial.

Personally I have serious doubts that any human can be impartial or not hold any socially motivated views. Despite this, however, second theory of child raising hopefully results in a certain consciousness of other viewpoints which I believe is a positive one. Censorship for minors, unless you are attempting to impose ideological purity, is unnecessary and theoretically damaging for an open society.

My CRITO Essay - After Some Research

I suppose I'm not really surprised, but after some research (as suggested by prof. DKJ), it seems there is a tradition of 'Animal Abolitionism.' This view advocates the abolition of animal ownership as a central tenet of a moral relationship with animals. It's proponents include Tom Regan and Gary Francione.

In the end I think I agree with the conclusions of this particular school of thought. In order to truly have a moral relationship with animals, we need a paradigm shift more fundamental than providing for the welfare of owned animals. We need to change the way we think of animals.

Responding to "Double Standards"

There seems to be a huge degree of reluctance about dealing with or discussing the societal discrimination against men, and for good reason. There is the risk of such a discussion becoming the rear guard sexism that crops up in such places as Esquire magazine. Also, I'm sure no one would deny, women deal with inequality far more often than men, and that struggle therefore seems more pressing. I am not, however, advocating that issues men deal with in society should not be dealt with, but I can see why the topic is often avoided.

Avery's original post can be found here.

My CRITO Essay

In my essay I explore the topic of an earlier post: why it is immoral to own animals. My argument rests on the premise that humans, sentient animals, and objects comprise the three foundational categories of moral things. In a sort of broad way these categories dictate the ways we should interact morally. There is a certain way for humans to interact with each of these categories.

While it is clear that animals cannot interact with us the way we can interact with other humans, they are sentient beings and deserve certain moral considerations. Thus it would be improper to 'own' an animal, because ownership is a certain human relationship with an object. Animals are not objects, and thus morally require a different sort of relationship.