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.

Q&A Question 2

Is distance eliminated or changed if I can see the suffering victims through the media or the internet?

In relation to Singer's argument and the argument for an emphatic ethics. The qualities of distance, that one cannot see or hear what is going on in a distant place, seem to be minimized by the media available to us that gives us indirect access to what is happening at a distance.

I think in ethics this is a relevant discussion. Especially when dealing with a sort of ethics that is based on the feelings on empathy. If you can get that 'distant' suffering right into your living room, is it that distant at all? So if there where an argument based on distance, this would need to be taken into account.

Q&A Question 1

If we accept Singer as true, will the application of massive aid actually relieve poverty?

I suppose this is a bit of a leading question on my part. But I think that this is a serious flaw in Singers argument. Will the application of aid do what it is supposed to do? Which is relieving suffering.

Then again there is the argument that is what is right is right. The act of saving a persons life right now is moral, and to hell with the consequences.

Responding to "Is 'Owning' a Pet Ethical?"

From the title I thought the issue of 'owning' was what was going to be discussed. I think it is possible that the mode of 'being owned' is certainly immoral in humans. We will likely all agree that slavery is immoral.

So the question is then, is it moral to own animals? In our last class we discussed that just about every animal likely has the capacity for pleasure and pain, but if these can be provided for in the situation of ownership then there may be no immoral grounds for owning. But what about animals that exhibit signs of consciousnes?

Ownership implys that the subject of ownership is an object, and that it can be disposed of in whatever way the owner thinks fit. If we do think that animals are in a separate moral category from objects, we might want to look forward to a different mode of relationship that is more moral than owner and owned. For example, the treatment of pets in certain social contexts as a sort of part of the family, should be extended into the legal sphere, replacing ownership.