Saturday, May 21, 2005

My Dog or Your Child? Ethical Dilemmas and the Hierarchy of Moral Value

By Steven Best

Read full article...

Posted 05/21 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. Earlier this week the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) set up shop on the Ohio State campus for 2 days.  You know, the folks who exhibit baybee-bits pictures and compare abortion to the Holocaust, lynching, and the Pol Pot Regime.

    Your exact question came up in discussion between a guy who I assume was a philosophy grad student and a GAPer:

    If you were in a burning building and could save either a 5-year old boy or a petri dish with 10 zygotes (or whatever), which would you choose.  Remember you can save only one.

    This started what became an extremely tiresome discussion involving pregnant angels and dolphins, but in the end the GAPer admittted he’s save the petri dish.

    Posted by Jennings from Columbus, Ohio  on  05/21  at  08:18 PM

  2. “I would rather that elephants again freely roam the African savannas, that chimpanzees fill the rainforests with playful hoots, that rainforests once again swell majestically, that the rivers and oceans become cleansed and teem with dolphins, whales, and fish. I would rather the regeneration of the earth transpire than have humans continue to devour and destroy the planet with their SUVs, superhighways, urban sprawl, cookie-cutter suburbs, bloated families, fast food addictions, Supersize Me appetites, arrogance and alienation, and grotesque fat asses.”

    Yes, thank you. I read recently an article (of course I don’t recall where) about what Central Park would look like 5, 10, 20, 50 (or some similar grouping) years following the end of the human species on earth. It was beautiful and I wept, thinking if only a virus could wipe all of us humans out this week, before anyone could get off nuclear weapons (because of course all the fundamentalists everywhere would assume the virus was an attack, which would make life very difficult for other species), I would accept it willingly. And fantasized seeing Central Park 50 years after our disappearance. But of course you have to be very careful to whom you say these things, that is if you want them to listen to you talk about vegetarianism/veganism, non-leather shoes, etc., circuses and zoos, well, everything we talk about, you know.

    I also have a response to the burning house question, though I agree that it’s never asked seriously by the speciesists. My answer would be, “I would try to save them both, and if I couldn’t, I would probably die with them.” Then, when they responded, “No, no, you have to choose,” my response would be, “You have asked a hypothetical question; I’m answering that hypothetical question. I have as much right to answer in hypothetical terms as you have to ask in such terms.” And then I’d go “nyah, nyah, nyah, you are a weenie.” Well, probably not, as it would kill the moment.

    Many thanks for your work. Do you ever get to Cleveland?  Catherine

    Posted by catherine from cleveland  on  05/23  at  01:35 PM

  3. If animals are our family, and therefore more valuable to save, will your next argument will be for pro inter-species marriage ?

    Somehow other species TEND to look after their own. Why should humans be any different ?

    Posted by Steve from New York, NY  on  05/24  at  02:11 PM

  4. I’m very tired of comparisons to the Holocaust from you and others.  Farmers killing chickens are NOT like Nazis killing Jews. 

    (1) The Nazis’ goal was to cause suffering and kill.  The farmer’s goal is to make a living.  Unlike the Nazis, the farmers are not acting out of malice.

    (2) The Nazis acted purely out of hatred.  The Nazis were not competing with the Jews for scarce resources.  They were not involved in a competition with the Jews.  They killed Jews because of hatred.  The farmers kill livestock for food and livelihood.

    (3) The farmers don’t boast about how many chickens they have killed.  They don’t want to kill or torture their neighbor’s chickens.  They don’t hate the chickens.  They don’t offer rewards for anyone who turns in a chicken.

    Comparing farmers to the Nazi Holocaust is an insult to both Jews and farmers. 

    Your lackwit comparison of the criminals who destroyed the animal lab with Martin Luther King is equally invalid.  Do you really think Martin Luther King would have approved?  No, he wouldn’t.

    Posted by me from here  on  05/29  at  03:29 AM

  5. “...grotesque fat asses...”

    Yeah, always good to get in a cheap shot at fat folks.  All hail the compassion of the animal rights movement. [snort]

    Of course, you also deify Newkirk, who sneers at women with body hair, and thinks it’s fun to have Playboy models shill for her organization so she can get more horny frat boys to turn vegetarian.  Whatever.

    If this --along with Catherine’s disturbing Rapture-like fantasies of the Earth sans humans-- is the face of compassion, I’ll stick with my “evil” beer and burger, thanks.

    Posted by alsis38.9 from Portland, OR  on  05/31  at  09:19 AM

  6. I think the Nazi comparison is more accurately directed at the immense numbers of other species killed each day for human consumption. Whether or not the killers actually hate the killed is irrelevant; what is relevant is that they have complete power over the killed, as did the Nazis over the victims of the Holocaust (which included millions of people who were not Jewish, by the way). Actually, on-the-scene reports tell of horrendous mistreatment of animals by humans even BEFORE the actual point of death, so presumably this indicates some form of disrespect - even hatred - of the victims. But even without this element, can you really think it makes a difference to the animals what their killers think of them? They kill them, that’s the only point. And we now know that humans are not dependent upon animal flesh for optimum health, so there’s really no reason for killing animals, and there is for damned sure no reason for the breeding, fattening up, concentration-camp-like “living” quarters that make up the lives of most farmed animals today.

    Posted by catherine from cleveland  on  05/31  at  10:17 AM

  7. Alsis, some reading might be in order. The Rapturists are the people squandering the earth’s resources and its other species because people have Dominion given to them by God, and really, who needs the environment and other species when the End Times are near? I and others are in the other camp, the camp that recognizes that humans are special only in their horrendous power, not in any God-given context. The Rapturists believe in exceptionalism, the human species’ god-given right to exploit everything on earth. This worldview reeks, whether it’s based on species, race, gender, religion, nationality, age, etc.

    Posted by catherine from cleveland  on  05/31  at  10:24 AM

  8. I began to chuckle about half way through this bogus tripe.  A cow, which will be slaughtered, will choose to save her calf over the coyote that is trying to eat the calf.  The cow will grind the coyote into the dirt until there is nothing left of it.  It’s called survival.  That is what we’re doing everyday. 

    Whose ox gets gored?  Yours.  Who cries crocodile tears? 

    A PETA group was protesting the catching of fish in an American city.  Some hecklers gave them a bag of live minnows.  The minnows didn’t deserve such a fate.  What did the PETA people choose to do?  Save themselves or the minnows?  Who would you save?  I’d save the minnows.  Tough to catch a fish without bait.  You would have to feed the PETA activist the fish food.  It’s a no brainer. 

    You can always get another dog, fer krissakes, save the human.  Terry Schiavo’s blog made more sense than this stuff.  Holy cow.

    Posted by MDPB from  on  06/03  at  11:05 PM

  9. “Alsis, some reading might be in order.”

    Less patronization might be in order.  Just because I disagree with you doesn’t mean that this column is my first exposure to the philosophy of animal rights.

    “The Rapturists are the people squandering the earth’s resources and its other species because people have Dominion given to them by God, and really, who needs the environment and other species when the End Times are near?”

    You needn’t be so obtuse.  I was comparing your vision of a pastoral human-free ecosystem to the pie-in-the-sky philosophy that makes up much of Fundamentalist thinking.  You know, the glorious afterworld that will come only with complete human self-negation.  The parallels are obvious to me even if they’re not to you.

    “I and others are in the other camp, the camp that recognizes that humans are special only in their horrendous power, not in any God-given context.”

    Oh, and there’s your version of Original Sin, no doubt.  You know, a grizzly bear could rip my head off with minimal effort, just as an SUV could crush me into pulp.  Plenty of creatures on Earth have “horrendous” power.  I strive to stay off busy streets and to not pester grizzly bears, however.  That helps a bit.  I don’t believe that humans are innately evil and all-powerful, though I concur with you that our relationship with the world could use some work.  At least in this culture.

    “The Rapturists believe in exceptionalism, the human species’ god-given right to exploit everything on earth. This worldview reeks, whether it’s based on species, race, gender, religion, nationality, age, etc.”

    Your comments in the previous entry would seem to imply your own version of exceptionalism;If only those awful humans would go away, everything would just be peachy keen and sweet.  Except that even natural environments into which humans never go are often full of predation, violence, and sudden death.  Likewise, the animal rights movement has its share of rude assholes seriously lacking in insight and compassion.  I haven’t found it any better than a number of other reform movements in that regard.

    Posted by alsis38.9 from Portland, OR  on  06/04  at  09:12 AM

  10. People’s hearts bleed for animals, but they will just step over a dying human.  And that disgusts me.

    Even if the human was an 85 year old neighbor in the last stages of cancer, and the dog was a young, healthy puppy.  I’d still save the human, and maybe even step on the dog’s neck out of spite on my way out.

    Posted by sam from  on  06/05  at  05:38 PM

  11. In the burning house scenario, I would personally choose any human - able/disabled, fat/thin, christian/muslim/atheist, black/white/chinese, whatever - over an animal.

    Humans are not animals.  Label that observation what you want...but the fact remains.  Although someone that would choose to save an animal over a human is less than human imho.

    The strawman argument is that the merits of animal and human behaviour is what should be used to evaluate the relative merits of species.  However that’s a generalisation - just because some humans are abusers of the planet, doesn’t mean all are...and a small baby has hardly had the chance to make choices along those lines.  So why should it be punished because of an individual’s personal biases against humans?  It can be said though that all humans are human, and all animals are animal, so that point of distinction remains when making the choice of who to save.

    Posted by Don from Australia  on  06/16  at  02:26 AM

  12. Why did Mickey allow this hogwash?

    Members of the left who think the only true suffering of society exists solely in the animal population, and are willing to supplement the pain and suffering of the working class to preserve animal sanctity is part of PressAction’s agenda now?

    “I would rather the regeneration of the earth transpire than have humans continue to devour and destroy the planet with their SUVs, superhighways, urban sprawl, cookie-cutter suburbs, bloated families, fast food addictions, Supersize Me appetites, arrogance and alienation, and grotesque fat asses.”

    A subtle advocation of human genocide?  Good one.

    Posted by sam from  on  06/29  at  02:07 AM
    13. Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. {/if}

    Next entry: Only Republicans Lie?

    Previous entry: A Birthday Message from the IWW: Rebel, And Mean It

    [ads]

    Support Press Action