Chimps and Mortality

The link below is an article by Scientific America discussing primates potential understanding of the concept of death

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=chimpanzees-understand-death

Q&A #7: Question Two

My second question this week on the status of nonhuman animals is whether there is an immoral facet to the concept of owning pets. I have come up with three potential mutual benefits to why owner and pet relationships can be a moral good. One is the simple fact that typically both owner and pet are pleased by the companionship of the other, usually there is emotion invested from the owner to animal which is compassionate and loving. Second in the case of adopting animals, many of which may have been previously abused or face uncertainty given the lack of resources and funding for animal shelters, adopting that pet into your life may significantly increase its health and its happiness. Third is that it would seem that people who grow up with pets, would be more sympathetic to the rights of animals having established an intimate connection with animals in their lives already. This is not to say that all animal owners and adopters behave in the manner I described earlier but I would hope that these people are a small immoral minority.

Note:
It would seem also that in order to be an owner who respects the life of the animal that it would be wrong to restrict them to a life of domestication indoors, however many people have outdoor cats and pets such as lizards or snakes which are not confined to cages or tanks.

Q&A #7: Question One

The first question I had regarding the status of nonhuman animals was whether the argument could be put forward that it is wrong to intentionally harm animals, as it compromises the potential for their living a full and meaningful life. This line of argumentation was similar to that which came up during the discussion of abortion and the rights of the potential human being (i.e the unborn fetus). I think that this claim could work, only if the value assigned to a human life and its prosperity were considered comparable or equal to that of an animal.  Our standing hierarchy in society is that human life surpasses all others in inherent value, which in principle I support but again preferring human life as more valuable reduces the value of animal lives. It would seem that in order to use potentiality as an argument for treating nonhuman animals with moral consideration, would require the claim that all life (not only human life) is inherently valuable and worthy of respect

Q&A #6: Question two

The second question I had during this week was about the nature of ethics in a deterministic universe. I am unsettled by the idea that we could remove all responsibility from our actions simply because a particular state of affairs was determined to happen. My resolution to this problem looks something like this, when a moral decision for me arrives, I arrive at that state of affairs due to the antecedent events which preceded it. If this is true, and in a previous state of affairs I was taught that stealing was wrong, then could we not blame me for stealing because the previous state of affairs should have influenced me to not steal? I guess I am speculating about whether a person's learned moral code counts as a previous event which should then influence the event in which I face a moral dilemma. Perhaps I am not articulating this properly but let me know if any of you have any thoughts about my hypothesis here.

Q&A #6: Question One

My first question this week is whether there is a difference between determined and pre-determined given the topic for this week. I have yet to come to a distinction so I will post a response to this question after our discussion in class today.

Q&A #5: Question Two

The second question I had this week regarding time is how we can deny the existence of time as force of nature altogether. I can understand that due to the inability to properly define the stages of time (past, present, future) concretely, we may become skeptical about the use of such terms to describe the passage of time. I do find it difficult however to deny the concept of duration, as for practical purposes we need this concept to live in our day to day lives as a species. We cannot deny that a human life is finite, no matter how we measure this duration in years or otherwise, human beings do not live forever. Not only do human beings have a finite existence but a majority of the material and perceivable world around us does not have an infinite lifespan. Again for the purpose of trying to find meaning in our lives and to support our species physically, we have to accept some concept of time so that we can survive. Aside from this I am still wondering whether a person can dismiss time altogether and still function day to day in our society successfully.

Q&A #5: Question One

The first question I had about this weeks topic of time is in regards to the block theory of time. If the past, present, and future already exist, it implies that the world is predetermined . If this is so then the contentious debate about whether we have free will in a deterministic universe is bound to arise. The author brings up some points about this topic saying that we may eventually commit a particular action of our own volition, so in that sense free will does not disappear in a determined system. It seems to me that accepting that we will one day perform a particular action seems fatalistic, it seems to remove some responsibility for the action as a proper defense of an immoral act would be "well I was going to do it anyways because it is inevitable". If there is a moral system in a predetermined universe, it seems it would have to be based on intention, I can hope for the best when committing a certain act but whether I do something immoral is already determined. I can still intend to do the right thing but inevitably I am bound to perform whatever action I have already committed in the already existing future.