Comments due by 11:59pm Saturday, November 23, 2013.
In class you have read both "Deep Ecology" by Bill Devall and George Sessions and "People or Penguins: The Case for Optimal Pollution" by William Baxter. Here I want you to reflect critically on both essays.
What claims did you find striking in both essays? Did they make any plausible arguments? If so, which ones? And why should we find them plausible? Did they offer some implausible arguments? If so, which ones, and why should we think they are implausible?
Press each other here. Challenge one another. Get after these issues. Demand reasons. And as always, be gracious, charitable, and humble. Learn from each other.
Monday, November 18, 2013
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Environmental Harms, Radical Injustices?
Comments Due: 11:59pm on Tuesday, November 19, 2013.
Here's an infographic that seems to correspond well to Barbara MacKinnon's essay.
In the same vein, this website maintains that the injustices here are widespread and profound--of course, they are not alone in making such claims--and it seeks to address in very practical ways such injustices.
What do you make of all this? Should we be alarmed? Where do these sources go wrong, if anywhere? Assuming their claims are true, are these indeed gross injustices? What ought to be done as a result?
Think carefully through these issues. Learn from others. Be gracious and charitable. Be humble. We all have something to learn.
Here's an infographic that seems to correspond well to Barbara MacKinnon's essay.
In the same vein, this website maintains that the injustices here are widespread and profound--of course, they are not alone in making such claims--and it seeks to address in very practical ways such injustices.
What do you make of all this? Should we be alarmed? Where do these sources go wrong, if anywhere? Assuming their claims are true, are these indeed gross injustices? What ought to be done as a result?
Think carefully through these issues. Learn from others. Be gracious and charitable. Be humble. We all have something to learn.
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
R.G. Frey on Animal Experimentation
Comments due by 11:59pm Sunday, November 10, 2013.
On Blackboard you will find an article by R.G. Frey on the use of animals in research. You can also find the paper here.
Here's one passage from his paper:
"If we are going to use animals, the argument that I have raised in this essay seems to require that we at least be prepared to use certain humans as well, depending upon their respective qualities of life. Can we bring ourselves to do this?"
Read the entire paper closely. What do you make of his arguments? Where do they go wrong, if anywhere?
Engage each other in good conversation. Be gracious, charitable, and humble. Learn from each other!
On Blackboard you will find an article by R.G. Frey on the use of animals in research. You can also find the paper here.
Here's one passage from his paper:
"If we are going to use animals, the argument that I have raised in this essay seems to require that we at least be prepared to use certain humans as well, depending upon their respective qualities of life. Can we bring ourselves to do this?"
Read the entire paper closely. What do you make of his arguments? Where do they go wrong, if anywhere?
Engage each other in good conversation. Be gracious, charitable, and humble. Learn from each other!
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Some Recent and Relevant Reports (and one a few years old now)
Comments due by 11:59pm Sunday, November 3, 2013.
In this post I want to direct your attention to some recent and relevant articles in the popular media (in addition to one a few years old now) as well as a webpage hosted by the the Animal Legal Defense Fund.
This article was just published by The Washington Post on Tuesday, October 29th. It is entitled "USDA plan to speed up poultry-processing lines could increase risk of bird abuse." (Note that it is a 3-page article. Be sure to click on pages 2 and 3 when reading the article.)
Here's a graphic that accompanies that WP article. It is entitled "For birds on the slaughter line, two ways to die."
Speaking of being boiled alive, here's a report that came out in The Huffington Post this past August 8th. The report is entitled "Lobsters, Crabs Feel Pain, Don't Just Respond to Stimulus: Research."
Back to birds: This report from a few years ago identifies a different way millions of baby chicks die.
Finally, here's that page from the Animal Legal Defense Fund entitled "Animal Testing and the Law".
Read all of these brief articles carefully. What strikes you in each? What implications (if any) does any of this have for our common social practices? Be sure to interact with each other as you think together about these relevant and practical moral issues.
P.S. Here's a reason to ban hunting! (This was reported on Friday, October 25th.)
In this post I want to direct your attention to some recent and relevant articles in the popular media (in addition to one a few years old now) as well as a webpage hosted by the the Animal Legal Defense Fund.
This article was just published by The Washington Post on Tuesday, October 29th. It is entitled "USDA plan to speed up poultry-processing lines could increase risk of bird abuse." (Note that it is a 3-page article. Be sure to click on pages 2 and 3 when reading the article.)
Here's a graphic that accompanies that WP article. It is entitled "For birds on the slaughter line, two ways to die."
Speaking of being boiled alive, here's a report that came out in The Huffington Post this past August 8th. The report is entitled "Lobsters, Crabs Feel Pain, Don't Just Respond to Stimulus: Research."
Back to birds: This report from a few years ago identifies a different way millions of baby chicks die.
Finally, here's that page from the Animal Legal Defense Fund entitled "Animal Testing and the Law".
Read all of these brief articles carefully. What strikes you in each? What implications (if any) does any of this have for our common social practices? Be sure to interact with each other as you think together about these relevant and practical moral issues.
P.S. Here's a reason to ban hunting! (This was reported on Friday, October 25th.)
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Dog Fighting and Factory Farming
Comments due by 11:59pm Monday (9/23).
This week in class we are beginning to look explicitly at some arguments against eating meat and other animal products (eggs, dairy, etc.). In an effort to continue that conversation, please consider the following material.
In 2007, NFL star quarterback Michael Vick agreed to plead guilty to federal charges regarding dog fighting on his property. His actions were condemned heartily by the public, and he lost several high profile endorsements as a result. In 2009, Vick was released from prison and reinstated in the NFL. His reinstatement, and subsequent signing by the Philadelphia Eagles (where he is quarterback today) was surrounded by considerable controversy. Much ink was spilled over whether Vick should ever be allowed to play in the NFL again.
In this very brief op-ed that appeared in the Philadelphia Daily News, Gary Francione argues that "we are all Michael Vick", and that Vick's case "dramatically demonstrates...our 'moral schizophrenia' about animals."
In the course of the brief op-ed, Francione claims that "the animals we eat suffer as much as the dogs that are used in dog fighting." He further claims that the animals we eat are 'tortured' and that how they are treated is 'hideous'. These are claims that are made, and supported to varying degrees, by some of the essays we are reading together.
Upon reading Francione's brief essay, you might reflect upon the following sorts of questions:
1. Is there a moral difference between Vick's dog fighting and rearing, killing, and eating animals? Does this moral difference result in justifying our current eating practices?
2. Francione asks at the end of his op-ed: "How removed from the screaming crowd around the
This week in class we are beginning to look explicitly at some arguments against eating meat and other animal products (eggs, dairy, etc.). In an effort to continue that conversation, please consider the following material.
In 2007, NFL star quarterback Michael Vick agreed to plead guilty to federal charges regarding dog fighting on his property. His actions were condemned heartily by the public, and he lost several high profile endorsements as a result. In 2009, Vick was released from prison and reinstated in the NFL. His reinstatement, and subsequent signing by the Philadelphia Eagles (where he is quarterback today) was surrounded by considerable controversy. Much ink was spilled over whether Vick should ever be allowed to play in the NFL again.
In this very brief op-ed that appeared in the Philadelphia Daily News, Gary Francione argues that "we are all Michael Vick", and that Vick's case "dramatically demonstrates...our 'moral schizophrenia' about animals."
In the course of the brief op-ed, Francione claims that "the animals we eat suffer as much as the dogs that are used in dog fighting." He further claims that the animals we eat are 'tortured' and that how they are treated is 'hideous'. These are claims that are made, and supported to varying degrees, by some of the essays we are reading together.
Upon reading Francione's brief essay, you might reflect upon the following sorts of questions:
1. Is there a moral difference between Vick's dog fighting and rearing, killing, and eating animals? Does this moral difference result in justifying our current eating practices?
2. Francione asks at the end of his op-ed: "How removed from the screaming crowd around the
dog pit is the laughing group around the summer steak barbecue?" What's your reply?
3. Francione briefly presents the case of Simon the Sadist. He wonders how those who eat animal products are any different from Simon. He claims that "we are all Simon". Is he right about that? If not, why not? If so, why?
4. Does it seem right to claim, as Francione does, that the animals we eat are "tortured" and experience "hideous" treatment? If not, why not? Do you have good reasons for thinking that those modifiers are mistaken? If so, what are those reasons?
Get after the (many) issues raised here and press each other, challenge each other. Take advantage of this opportunity to engage in high-level critical reflection on a very relevant, practical matter. And as always, be gracious, charitable, and humble as you express your views, offer your arguments, ask your questions, and interact with others.
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Peter Singer on Animal Ethics
Comments due by 11:59pm Sunday (9/15).
In class this week we considered a critical reply to Singer's principle of the equal consideration of interests. And previously we have considered some views from abolitionists that seem to contrast starkly with Singer's view.
Here I want you to consider this interview with Peter Singer where he discusses his own view, responds to some questions, clarifies his position, and challenges contemporary practices regarding animals.
The podcast is found here.
Discuss critically his views. Is he right about all this? Does he give good reasons for his views here? Any questions? Worries? Objections?
As always, take advantage of this opportunity to think together in community, to go hard after the arguments, to cultivate the habit of thinking in a sustained fashion on incredibly significant and terribly practical matters. Press and challenge each other, and do so in a way that is gracious and charitable and humble.
In class this week we considered a critical reply to Singer's principle of the equal consideration of interests. And previously we have considered some views from abolitionists that seem to contrast starkly with Singer's view.
Here I want you to consider this interview with Peter Singer where he discusses his own view, responds to some questions, clarifies his position, and challenges contemporary practices regarding animals.
The podcast is found here.
Discuss critically his views. Is he right about all this? Does he give good reasons for his views here? Any questions? Worries? Objections?
As always, take advantage of this opportunity to think together in community, to go hard after the arguments, to cultivate the habit of thinking in a sustained fashion on incredibly significant and terribly practical matters. Press and challenge each other, and do so in a way that is gracious and charitable and humble.
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Gary Francione on Animal Abolitionism
Comments due by 11:59pm this Sunday (9/8).
In class we have talked together through several views challenging our contemporary treatment of animals, whether as food, for research, entertainment, clothing, etc. We have read Peter Singer, Tom Regan, and James Rachels. We'll be reading others later.
Here I want you to listen to a brief interview with abolitionist Gary Francione. Here is a bio from Francione's website:
"Gary L. Francione is Board of Governors Professor of Law and Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Scholar of Law and Philosophy at Rutgers University School of Law-Newark.
He received his B.A. in philosophy from the University of Rochester, where he was awarded the Phi Beta Kappa O’Hearn Scholarship that allowed him to pursue graduate study in philosophy in Great Britain. He received his M.A. in philosophy and his J.D. from the University of Virginia. He was Articles Editor of the Virginia Law Review.
After graduation, he clerked for Judge Albert Tate, Jr., United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor of the United States Supreme Court. He was an associate at Cravath, Swaine & Moore in New York City before joining the faculty at the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1984, where he was tenured in 1987. He joined the Rutgers faculty in 1989."
The link to the podcast is here.
There is a lot to talk about in this interview. Francione offers a number of reasons for supposing that the animal welfare movement (which he credits Peter Singer with inspiring) is fundamentally misguided and answers several questions and responds to several objections to the abolitionist approach. Among other things, he discusses domesticating animals (the use of animals as pets), free range products, the economic factors behind the animal industry, the (alleged) distinction between moral justification and excuse, the unintended harms to animals in a vegan diet, eating roadkill, and explanations for why more people aren't abolitionists (opting instead for animal welfarism).
What did you find plausible about Francione's views? Were his arguments compelling? Why or why not? I presume that, for many of you, he is challenging your everyday practices and habits. He is arguing that you are routinely doing something immoral. How do you respond?
As always, push each other and challenge each other. Learn from each other. Demand reasons. Make arguments. And do so in a way that is gracious, charitable, and humble.
In class we have talked together through several views challenging our contemporary treatment of animals, whether as food, for research, entertainment, clothing, etc. We have read Peter Singer, Tom Regan, and James Rachels. We'll be reading others later.
Here I want you to listen to a brief interview with abolitionist Gary Francione. Here is a bio from Francione's website:
"Gary L. Francione is Board of Governors Professor of Law and Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Scholar of Law and Philosophy at Rutgers University School of Law-Newark.
He received his B.A. in philosophy from the University of Rochester, where he was awarded the Phi Beta Kappa O’Hearn Scholarship that allowed him to pursue graduate study in philosophy in Great Britain. He received his M.A. in philosophy and his J.D. from the University of Virginia. He was Articles Editor of the Virginia Law Review.
After graduation, he clerked for Judge Albert Tate, Jr., United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor of the United States Supreme Court. He was an associate at Cravath, Swaine & Moore in New York City before joining the faculty at the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1984, where he was tenured in 1987. He joined the Rutgers faculty in 1989."
The link to the podcast is here.
There is a lot to talk about in this interview. Francione offers a number of reasons for supposing that the animal welfare movement (which he credits Peter Singer with inspiring) is fundamentally misguided and answers several questions and responds to several objections to the abolitionist approach. Among other things, he discusses domesticating animals (the use of animals as pets), free range products, the economic factors behind the animal industry, the (alleged) distinction between moral justification and excuse, the unintended harms to animals in a vegan diet, eating roadkill, and explanations for why more people aren't abolitionists (opting instead for animal welfarism).
What did you find plausible about Francione's views? Were his arguments compelling? Why or why not? I presume that, for many of you, he is challenging your everyday practices and habits. He is arguing that you are routinely doing something immoral. How do you respond?
As always, push each other and challenge each other. Learn from each other. Demand reasons. Make arguments. And do so in a way that is gracious, charitable, and humble.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)