Judging by what I read, I might have freely read it. It was good because it used references to things that we know about. For instance, Auckland and how everyone there plays rugby. I might not know that game, but I got the gist of what he was trying to say about determinism. I never really thought of it that way before. However, I do not think that what he is saying is true. I don’t think that we can tell exactly how things are going to be 5 hundred years from now.
When he was talking about free will though, I agreed about how we do not have free will, we only have choices. He had a lot of great examples about it too. Throughout both of the essays though, I felt that he just kept on repeating himself over and over again. I did however learn a lot from these essays. It was a good read.
How do people know how the world is going to be 5 hundred years from now?
Is there really such thing as free will?
Monday, December 17, 2007
children and animals
When reading the essays from the site listed above, my mind was drawn to the thought of how animals and young children act. When reading about moral status it brought me to moral patient and moral agency. Those two I feel help express the implications for humans of the moral status of nonhumans. Humans that are no longer infants, and are able to comprehend well are not only moral patients but moral agents as well. We understand what is going on around us and have control of what we do.
As for infinites, animals, and others who cannot control what they do because they do not know what is right and what is wrong, are only moral patients.
As for infinites, animals, and others who cannot control what they do because they do not know what is right and what is wrong, are only moral patients.
torture
It is difficult to say whether or not I agree or disagree with torturing the terrorist to save others, or to not torture him and have the others die. I would feel very badly if we did hurt and torture him, but I think we would be better off in the long run to do that to save many others.
Not to mention, it was in fact his fault that the bomb was there. However I still feel that torture is very wrong. I guess, depending on the circumstances it is not good, but it is needed. This article really made me think, about how I felt about America torturing others and whether or not it should be done.
Not to mention, it was in fact his fault that the bomb was there. However I still feel that torture is very wrong. I guess, depending on the circumstances it is not good, but it is needed. This article really made me think, about how I felt about America torturing others and whether or not it should be done.
animal rights
I really enjoyed reading this book. It had a lot of very good arguments about how animals have been treated and the way that they are treated now. It also gives good reasons why, and how we should treat animals from now on. In other words, we should not treat them at all, and just leave them alone to fend for themselves. We should not even use them for food.
When this book starts off, it talks about how our attitudes towards animals are schizophrenic. It talks about how animals were treated back in the 19th century, and then moves on to how we treat them now. He mentions about how we say that we do not want to impose badly on animals, but we still do even though we don’t think that what we are doing in bad to them. One of the many argument in chapter two that I thought was interesting was how if we treat animals the way that we do, by using them for testing things such as medicine, then we might as well use the homeless on the streets too. In chapter three it talks more about how we say that we do not want to inflict unnecessary pain on animals, but he is curious as to how much of it really is unnecessary. In chapter four he gives us two choices as to our moral status about animals. We can keep having them suffer, or we can change our ways and realize that they significant interests and that we should not hurt them. Chapter five talks about, the four reasons why we should not deny animals their rights. In the next chapter, it talks about Bentham’s mistake and how he is part of the reason why animals are looked at as things. In the last chapter it asks us if we would save our children over the animals.
I do agree with a lot of the arguments that were presented in this book. I also understand Francione’s want for change. However I don’t think that everyone today would be willing to change their ways about how they treat or see animals today. There are so many people who love to eat meat and feel as though they could not go without it, and because of that, I don’t feel as though things could ever change as much as he would like them to change. One of the arguments that I really thought about was the one about how if we are going to use animals for testing then we might as well use the homeless on the street. It is a very cruel statement, but it really made me stop and think.
When this book starts off, it talks about how our attitudes towards animals are schizophrenic. It talks about how animals were treated back in the 19th century, and then moves on to how we treat them now. He mentions about how we say that we do not want to impose badly on animals, but we still do even though we don’t think that what we are doing in bad to them. One of the many argument in chapter two that I thought was interesting was how if we treat animals the way that we do, by using them for testing things such as medicine, then we might as well use the homeless on the streets too. In chapter three it talks more about how we say that we do not want to inflict unnecessary pain on animals, but he is curious as to how much of it really is unnecessary. In chapter four he gives us two choices as to our moral status about animals. We can keep having them suffer, or we can change our ways and realize that they significant interests and that we should not hurt them. Chapter five talks about, the four reasons why we should not deny animals their rights. In the next chapter, it talks about Bentham’s mistake and how he is part of the reason why animals are looked at as things. In the last chapter it asks us if we would save our children over the animals.
I do agree with a lot of the arguments that were presented in this book. I also understand Francione’s want for change. However I don’t think that everyone today would be willing to change their ways about how they treat or see animals today. There are so many people who love to eat meat and feel as though they could not go without it, and because of that, I don’t feel as though things could ever change as much as he would like them to change. One of the arguments that I really thought about was the one about how if we are going to use animals for testing then we might as well use the homeless on the street. It is a very cruel statement, but it really made me stop and think.
why work
Why work? I do feel that most people feel the same way as Philip Larkin when it comes to the topic about work. They don’t like it, and they feel that it should not be around and no one should have to deal with it. However I do not think that everyone feels that way. For instance, some people are “workaholics” and they love going into work every day and then staying there late. I know many people who feel this same way. It could be though that they just love to make money, and living fancier lives.
If it were not for work, then where would we be today? We probably would not be around, because everything that we do involves work. There would be no food, shelter, clothes, or anything else that every human being needs to survive.
It is interesting though, because we have grown to be so accustomed to working that without it I don’t think people would be happy for long because they would just get bored not doing anything all day long. Work makes us better people, and without it… the world might not be the way that it is. Maybe that would not be such a bad thing though.
Question 1: Do workaholics love work or do they love to make money?
Question 2: Would the world be a better place without work?
If it were not for work, then where would we be today? We probably would not be around, because everything that we do involves work. There would be no food, shelter, clothes, or anything else that every human being needs to survive.
It is interesting though, because we have grown to be so accustomed to working that without it I don’t think people would be happy for long because they would just get bored not doing anything all day long. Work makes us better people, and without it… the world might not be the way that it is. Maybe that would not be such a bad thing though.
Question 1: Do workaholics love work or do they love to make money?
Question 2: Would the world be a better place without work?
zoos
Are Zoos pornographic?
In some sense, I do think that they are, but I don’t think that they are meant to be. In my opinion though, we should not have zoos or circuses. Animals should be left alone and we should not disturb them with the way that we live. If they are going to die, then they should die off naturally, and I am sure that they would appreciate it too if they were not put into cages for the rest of their lives so that people can look at them.
The way that animals are shown in zoos is not as bad as circuses because they are not being mistreated like at circuses. They are not being asked to do tricks for food, or anything else like that. So in conclusion, I do not think that zoos are good, but they are not pornographic like circuses are.
Question 1: Are animals considered “wild” once they are put into a zoo?
Question 2: Are circuses considered animal abuse?
In some sense, I do think that they are, but I don’t think that they are meant to be. In my opinion though, we should not have zoos or circuses. Animals should be left alone and we should not disturb them with the way that we live. If they are going to die, then they should die off naturally, and I am sure that they would appreciate it too if they were not put into cages for the rest of their lives so that people can look at them.
The way that animals are shown in zoos is not as bad as circuses because they are not being mistreated like at circuses. They are not being asked to do tricks for food, or anything else like that. So in conclusion, I do not think that zoos are good, but they are not pornographic like circuses are.
Question 1: Are animals considered “wild” once they are put into a zoo?
Question 2: Are circuses considered animal abuse?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)