A Part of Human Nature

Through the questions posed in Q&A 11, the class has found several interesting facts pertaining to the intelligence and sentience of fish:
1. Fish have an intellectual ability comparable to dogs and perhaps learn faster than dogs.
2. Fish have a sentience level comparable to "higher level" vertebrates.
3. Fish have similar abilities to feel as amphibians and mammals, including humans.

Yet, we continue to harvest these animals and let them die through suffocation. We treat these beings as if they are brainless and feelingless like a vegetable being harvested from a field. Just because these animals do not have the ability to scream does not mean they do not suffer while suffocating on the deck of a ship. I think that this practice will continue and has continued for so long because it does not affect humans. As seen through various other environmental oddities that occur because of human influence, such as global warming and extinction of species, people will not change unless it affects their lives. Like the implementation of any change, people must be informed that these animals have these abilities and, therefore, deserve to be treated as if they have these rights. However, there is hope with the continued message from environmentalists and through government action, overfishing will not be tolerated and must cease. Yet this is just the beginning of the fight to have these beings be recognized and be given some moral status. I don't think that it will occur in the near future because of the ignorance of some many, but over time it has a chance with continued research and education.

The Arrogant Gaze

The arrogant gaze, as described by Acampora, is a gaze which demands some sort of exhibition by the object being looked at and these expectations can be very demeaning and compromising to an objects true nature. The observer will often expect certain results by employing this gaze and expect to feel a certain emotion after the object being viewed has performed its desired action.

In the world of zoos people use the arrogant gaze and expect animals to behave as they would in the wild. This expectation is wildly illogical and demeans the animals integrity. First of all, the animal has been taken out of its natural habitat and placed in a less than adequate sized facility where it is expected to perform natural functions. This habitat created for the animals often times does not suit the needs of many animals because of migration and, in the case of birds, does not allow them to freely fly where they please. Second, some of the animals being exhibited are nocturnal and because the zoos are only open during the day the trainers must reverse their natural instincts in order to create this exhibitionism that tourists desire. This is a direct violation of the animals rights because it compromises the animal's autonomy from humans and forces the animal to engage in acts that are not usual or unnatural for its species. Thirdly, the animals are expected to rely on the care their trainers provide for them for food, water, shelter and protection. The animals, being taken out of a natural habitat, become totally depended upon trainers because their rights of predation and gathering are taken away because most of their habitat is made of concrete or some other manufactured material. Also, some animals have their wings clipped or their claws clipped in order to prevent flying or harm to trainers; this takes away the ability of animals to escape predation or to become predators and again forces an unnatural situation upon them.

So, it is fairly evident based upon the unnatural settings and conditions the animals face that the functioning of zoos is morally wrong. It is also fairly obvious that severe reform must occur within the zoo world if people are truly concerned about the integrity of the animals and if humans call themselves protectors of animal rights. However, I am concerned if there will ever be a zoo that will protect the moral rights of the animals while at the same time give humans the exhibition and observation of the animals they desire. What do you think a solution could be?

Slavery + Zoos + a Pinch of Kant

Kant was a philosopher who considered the moral scope, what is a moral scope, what rights do those in this scope have and who is in the scope? In Kant's view, only humans were in the scope, however, harming a nonhuman could be considered wrong if it would lead to the harming of those inside the moral sphere. I think, like most Neo-Kanitians today, that Kant really wanted to include animals in his moral sphere, but thought the idea too radical for the period because in most instances non humans are included in Kant's moral sphere.

Now that the further establishment of Kant's moral sphere is out of the way, I propose that zoos are wrong because of their resemblance to slavery and, in a more traditional Kantian view, are wrong because they could lead to the slavery of humans. Zoos resemble slavery because of the sheer fact that the animals that are taken out of the wild and who are bred by scientists have little to no autonomy. These animals are simply watered down phantoms of their natural state; they are not allowed the predator-prey relationship, they are not allowed to live in their full range for their habitat and are forced to act in such a manner as to entertain the human population. These points alone can justify that the animals' situations are greatly resembling slavery, which, seeing non humans as worthy of moral considerations, is a total disregard for one of the most important rights, autonomy. Additionally, the slavery of these animals, from a more traditional Kantian perspective, could lead to the slavery of humans because of the purest example from our discussion in class about kicking the dog leading to kicking one's wife.

Condemnation

People condemn each other or each other's ideas because they are fearful of them and most people are fearful of them because they are ignorant. And there is a saying that ignorance is bliss, but I dont believe that is true because ignorance breeds fear. This concept of fear and ignorance arise from the general publics laziness and lack of motivation to learn. Therefore, concepts like Marxism or communism have become "dangerous" words to use in political and social arenas. People were too lazy to learn the ideals of these concepts and, instead, put ultimate trust in their political figures to interpret these puzzling theories. This is completely wrong and is just another demonstration of the bourgeoisie alienating the proletariat through a barrage of misinformation to force the lower social classes to conform to upper class desires.

Is it the fault of education that leads people to become fearful of these subjects? I dont think so. In fact, I think it is the problem of the political figures and heads of industry who are afraid of change and who are scared of something new. If you go around the business community, and I have been told this while look for opportunities of employment in industry, business people like what they do not know and avoid that which they do not. So, in order to avoid what they do not know and, thus, are afraid of, the business leaders exert their power over the innocent cogs of capitalism, the average person, to submit to their desires.

Is there a solution to break free from the chains in which we struggle under the bourgeoisie? I believe so and I also think that it has already begun with the collection of sources and ideas that can be found on the Internet. With the Internet people can read publications from Marx, Hegel, etc. very easily and readily. Once reading through this information the individual can make his own judgments on the matter and if enough people are informed, change one way or another can occur.

Hedonian View of the World

It is a Hedonian view that it is human nature for people to seek pleasure and avoid pain. They also adopt the view that most people hold in America today that work is toil. Therefore, the Hedonians make the connection that work is painful and people naturally will avoid work. I believe that this view is wrong because of a misinterpretation by America of how to run the hierarchy of industry and the Sayers view is a better interpretation of human nature and people's perception of what work is supposed to be. Like Sayers states in his article, humans are productive, creative beings and enjoy being productive and creative while overcoming obstacles in performing a profession. However, the current US economic system is designed much like the feudal system, in that their is a categorization of people into those employed and those who employ. From this the compartmentalization is broken down further into managers and supervisors and workers. This creates alienation within the workplace and this alienation leads to the work becoming toilsome. So, in the context the Hedonian view is correct, but, overall, the view is misguided because of the alienation that occurs within the current US economic system.

Salary as a Report Card and the American Dream

In the early 1900s the Industrial Revolution in America was occurring and captains of industry such as Carnegie and Rockefeller began to create companies much like the companies of today's business world. With the rise of these two men came the rise of the American Dream; of one day rising from poverty to a peak covered in millions of dollars. Many immigrants came to America in search of this dream and many Americans toiled daily in search of this dream. From this dream came an obsession with money and a thought process that money is success. This American Dream was the beginning of the school of thought that one's salary is one's report card for life. After the Industrial Revolution every person was in the fight to make a dollar and that fight was no holds bar. People would disregard friends, family and community just take get rich because people saw money as happiness and the path to being successful. This pattern continued and continues to this day without taking into account the value of family, friends, self respect, helping other, etc. All these things can label one as successful, but it is a more interpersonal form of success. So, with the judgmental, self conscious public out there salary will continue to be a measure of success, which is atrocious and plays directly to the base Americans have created for themselves in the Marxist view of society.

Privatization: A Tool of the Bourgeoisie

With the privatization of the business world individuals have had the opportunity to become independently wealthy and many have taken this opportunity to earn billions of dollars. With incomes this large these people are given great power because, in America and most places around the world, the more money you have the more power and influence you posses. With this power, as we have discussed in class, the bourgeoisie exploits the laborers by setting their wages as low as possible to obtain the most profit. A similar thing has occurred with the privatization of education. Many people have views that a private education is better because public funds cannot cover enough supplies or hire the best teachers. This is seen even locally with the Admissions slogan here at MCLA, "a public college with a private atmosphere..." With these slogans and the effort to privatize our society the elite class is working towards further exploitation of the proletariat. In private schools, administrators are able to charge outrageous prices and set their own guidelines for academic goals. It is thought that the private atmosphere will provide better opportunities because they have more money and better teachers, but this belief is just a phrase that has been ingrained in our minds to help further the oppression. So, by taking more income from the proletariat through private schools and training (educating) people as they see fit, the elite class furthers its oppression of the proletariat by the continued privatization of American society.