Final Essay

Practicum Essay

            The Bronx River is believed to be originated from the Pleistocene Period, and developed as a pre-glacial stream. The River was then industrialized in the 1600s with mills for the manufacturing of paper, flour, pottery, tapestries, barrels and snuff, all reliant on hydropower from the river. Later in the 1800s, the construction of the New York Central Railroad made the Bronx River area an “industrial corridor” resulting in its high level of pollution, erosion, and contaminants. Thankfully, efforts were made to restore the Bronx River as early as 1888, with the establishment of the Bronx Park, a 662 acre buffer against urbanization and development. The Bronx’s environmental health still declined into the 1900s (bronxriver.org). Now the Bronx River Restoration and the Bronx River Alliance are working to restore the Bronx to its previous environmental and ecological health.

Fordham University’s Rose Hill campus has had a close relationship with the Bronx River, which now runs to the east of Fordham, since its establishment as St. John’s College. The college campus used to be a farm, quarries, hiking areas, and swimming holes. A branch of the Bronx River called “Mill Brook” used to be where Metro North Railroad is located on the far west of campus. The campus also used to have a pond with a diversity of wildlife. Now the Bronx River is to the east of Fordham. The Mill Brook was diverted into a city storm drain system, however the original stream bed and ravine is still visible as the MetroNorth tracks (Renewing Fordham’s Environmental History Legacy.Fordham.edu).

Today, Fordham is diligent in trying to reduce its impact on the environment to continue the traditions and relationship with the Bronx River. Fordham tries to recycle as much as possible and strives to find ways to reduce waste and promote the purchase of renewable and reusable products. All new buildings are designed to meet the U.S Green Building Councils LEED Silver rating. Fordham also has portion of electrically powered vehicles in their fleet and has met with the City of New York’s program to reduce carbon by 30% by 2017. The University endeavors to “advance understanding of environmental change through its curriculum and academic programs” (Sustainability legacy.fordham.edu).  Fordham is in coordination with the Bronx Zoo, the New York Botanical Gardens, the City of New York, and other sustainability efforts like the Bronx River Alliance.

In 2011, Fordham was graded on its sustainability. Overall, it received a C+ rating by Greenreportcard.org however the categories Endowment Transparency and Shareholder Engagement received “F”s automatically because the University did not make that information available. Some notable categories in which Fordham excelled were Climate Change and Energy, because Fordham has successfully achieved a 23 percent reduction in emissions since 2005, and Green Building because of the LEED Silver standards (greenreportcard.org). Furthermore, Fordham University has several student-run environmental clubs and organizations, including Students for Environmental Awareness and Justice (SEAJ), St. Rose’s Garden, Students for Fair Trade, and Student Culinary Council’s Sustainability Committee.

For the practicum, I joined the Sustainability Committee of the Student Culinary Council (SCC) here at Fordham. This club meets Thursday evenings for about an hour a week plus additional event hours, and its main purpose is to make the Marketplace and the retail locations on campus more sustainable. There has been an ongoing issue between Sodexo, Fordham’s dining services provider, and the students because there are not many sustainable options on campus. Sustainability committee works with Sodexo management to try to push sustainability initiatives into fruition.

Mainly, sustainability works on the Choose to Reuse campaign which allows students to buy inexpensive reusable food containers and coffee mugs that can be used in the Marketplace instead of paper and plastic take away containers. Right now, we are trying to push for this to be an option at all retail locations, especially since there is an excessive amount of waste in food containers. The Grille uses a large quantity of plastic salad containers and plastic cups that if not recycled, will sit in a landfill. We are also trying to introduce biodegradable or containers made from recycled materials, however the monetary cost of these items are proving to be more expensive than the plastic, so Sodexo is reluctant to want to switch.

In the past Sustainability Committee has accomplished tray-free dining which reduces food waste, and energy and water to clean, SmartStock® Cutlery Dispensers in retail locations, which is hygienic and reduces cutlery usage up to 25% because a traditional case of individually wrapped cutlery wastes 1 lb. of clear plastic wrap, pressuring Sodexo to buy ingredients locally, buying ingredients in bulk bags rather than plastic bottles or bulky packaging.

Finally, Sustainability Committee organizes the Waste Less Campaign which encourages people to take smaller portions of food to reduce food waste. We are also in the early stages of trying to establish a compost area and food donation system for unused food at the end of the day.

I believe the environmental ethic theory that reflects the meaning of my practicum is Bryan G. Norton’s Weak Anthropocentrism. Still an anthropocentric view with humans having the most intrinsic value, it also considers the designation of nonhuman objects as the center of fundamental values. Norton combines scientific theory in conjunction with an environmental ethic that considers humans living in harmony with nature. Norton describes the conflict humans have between felt and considered preferences. A felt preference is “any desire or need of a human individual that can at least temporarily be sated by some specifiable experience” (Norton 183). A considered preference is “any desire that a human individual would express after careful deliberation, including a judgment that the desire or need is consistent with a rationally adopted worldview” (Norton 183). Norton urges people to act on considered preferences rather than felt preferences. Such policies that can develop when acting on considered preferences can be preventing pollution, management of nuclear waste, and population control. Norton embraces a weak anthropocentric viewpoint that also is obligated continuing sustainable development, or the duty to preserve resources to future generations.

Although Norton has an interesting base of ethical theory, Paul Hawken in A Declaration of Sustainability, describes his Sustainability Ethics, his view on building on Norton’s anthropocentric view by proposing policy and a shift in views to a more sustainable future. Hawken mainly focuses on the business perspective and advocates for “new codes of conduct for corporate life that integrates the social, ethical, and environmental principles” (Hawken 432). The problem is not with the management but it is with the fundamental design. According to Hawken, in order to establish a sustainable society, “we need to describe a system of commerce and production in which each and every act is inherently sustainable and restorative” and that “there must be an integration of economic, biologic, and human systems in order to create a sustainable and interdependent method of commerce that supports our existence” (Hawken 433).

Hawken then proposed strategies for sustainability that include taking back the social charter between business and consumer, adjusting the price of things to reflect the cost to the environment, replace the tax system with “green fees,” allow resources companies to be utilities, change linear systems to cyclic ones, transform the “making of things” to be more sustainable, vote with money by refusing to purchase from companies that act or respond inappropriately, resotre the “guardian,” shift from electronic literacy to biological literacy, take inventory of the world to know its extent of biodiversity, take care of human health since the “greatest amount of human suffering and mortality is caused by environmental problems that are not being addressed by environmental organizations or companies; movement towards sustainability must address the clear  and present dangers that people face worldwide, dangers ironically increase population levels because of their perceived threat,” and respect the human spirit” (Hawken 433-438).

Fordham hospitality service and Sodexo in particular try to embrace much of the sustainability practices that Norton and Hawken propose. Hawken in his rules would encourage everyone to reduce, reuse, and recycle. Fordham could do more with the redesigning of the business. However Sodexo is a business and is in the business of making a profit. They do what they can to be sustainable to the future of Fordham and the community. Sodexo and other environmentally conscious companies are pragmatic, like the views of Norton, in being sustainable.

Bibliography

Hawken, Paul. “A Declaration of Sustainability.” Utne Reader, September/October 1993. 54-61.

“Fordham University College Sustainability Report Card 2011.” Fordham University. Sustainable Endowments Institute. Web. 16 Dec. 2014. <http://www.greenreportcard.org/report-card-2011/schools/fordham-university.html&gt;.

“Natural and Social History.” Bronx River Alliance. Web. 16 Dec. 2014. <http://bronxriver.org/?pg=content&p=abouttheriver&m1=9&gt;.

Norton, Bryan G. “Environmental Ethics and Weak Anthropocentrism.” Environmental Ethics, Vol 6, No. 2 (Summer 1984), 131-136, 138-148.

“Sustainability.” Sustainability. Ed. Deborah O’Grady. Web. 16 Dec. 2014. <http://legacy.fordham.edu/campus_resources/campus_facilities/facilities_managemen/sustainability/index.asp&gt;.

“Internships: Bronx River Alliance, NY Botanical Garden, Wildlife Conservation Society (Bronx Zoo).” Internships: Bronx River Alliance, NY Botanical Garden, Wildlife Conservation Society (Bronx Zoo). Ed. John Van Buren. Web. 16 Dec. 2014. <http://legacy.fordham.edu/academics/programs_at_fordham_/environmental_studie/internships_bronx_ri_75801.asp&gt;.

Blog 25: Ecofeminism

According to Karen Warren, Ecological Feminism is the “position that there are important connections− historical, symbolic, theoretical−between the dominion of women and the dominion of nonhuman nature” (VDV 279).  The oppression of women is due to the dominating patriarchic nature of both women and nature. Ecological feminism is an extensionist view that applies the principles of feminism to include the earth community. It is mainly and inclusive view that there is a respect for the differences between men and women and that those differences and the respect that goes along with it to be extended to the ecosystem. What is most appealing about ecofeminism is that there is an aspect of  flexibility  not found in many other traditional ethical theories regarding the ecosystem. In ecofeminism, Karen Warren argues that there must be no “isms” such as sexism, anthropocentricm, etc., and that it is mainly a contextualist Ethics. A contextualistic ethic is “one which sees ethical discourse and practice as emerging from the voices of people located in different historical circumstances” (VDV 289). She believes that the basis for ecofeminism is being different, so it must be open to difference and therefore ever changing. I think this important in most ethical theories because people’s perspectives and backgrounds change. It is the same reason why there has to be amendments to legislature as some laws are outdated and not applicable.

It is interesting how Warren discuses the labeling of nature as “mother nature,” which is a feminine nickname. Similarly, women are often referred to as “bitches” and “chicks” which are beastly terms rather than appropriate terms for women. What’s interesting is that ecofeminism is another reformist, Earth Wisdom worldview. Ecofeminism needs environmental ethic extensionist views to overcome a society ruled by men and man.

Blog 24: Deep and Environmental Pragmatism

Deep Ecology, coined by Arne Naess is the fundamental level of questioning in solving ecological problems.  Essence of Deep Ecology is to keep asking more searching questions about human life, society, and Nature as in Western philosophical traditions of Socrates. It is the nonanthropocentric view fundamentally values all life as having inherent worth. Naess describes two ultimate norms: self-realization and biocentric egalitarianism. Naess encourages people to adopt a view where we develop a wider self by a process of identification, or a self-in-Self, where Self is the organic wholeness. Humans are a part of nature, not dominant to it. For Biotic Egalitarianism, every human and non human have “equal right to live and blossom” meaning that entities of the Earth ecosystem have equal inherent worth (Naess 96). Therefore, humans must adopt a “Live and let live” mentality because we must live in symbiosis within Earth’s Ecosystem. We can do this by living simply, or “living simply in means, rich in ends.” Many humans live beyond their basic necessities, and our vital needs are much simpler than we realize. By doing so, humans can reduce their ecological footprint, minimize the class divide, and limit overpopulation problems. Naess encourages people to act beatifically, similarly to Kant, by primarily trying to influence people towards acting beautifully by finding ways to work on their inclinations rather than their morals in environmental affairs.

Meanwhile, Shallow Ecology is about actions like recycling, biking, reusing bags, etc. Shallow ecology tries to help solve the environmental problems of today, but as more of a human interest in mind rather than the whole earth community in consideration. While Deep Ecology is about changing minds, shallow ecology is about action. I like to believe that Deep ecology is the necessary motivating source for solving environmental issues in the long term, while Shallow Ecology is more of a band aid to severe hemorrhage in environmental problems. Deep ecology is holistic while shallow ecology is narrowly focused on minimizing pollution and resource depletion.

Our class discussion focused mainly on the consumerism aspect of deep ecology and whether deep ecology is practically effective. I thought that people mainly act in their own self interest and that people will probably not want to abandon their consumerist lives to live simpler. To Naess, embracing deep ecology is living a life similar to a monk, who lives without worldly pleasures or positions. I think it takes a very septic personality to want to and successfully live a life like that. We then discussed how even fifty years ago, products were made with better quality and lasted longer. At my house we have this vegetable peeler from my grandma’s house that is still sharp and working like new, while we have gone through countless other peelers made in the last ten years that barely last a few months. Now things are programmed and made to break, like technology and household goods. I have read articles about how Apple designs products to break after a set amount of time so people purchase the newer version.

Conversely, I just read an article about Patagonia, the outdoor sportswear company, that released a full-page ad in the New York Times in the middle of the holiday gift buying frenzy that says in bold, black letters “Don’t buy this jacket” (http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/ad-day-patagonia-136745). Patagonia lists several reasons for this ad, one of which is that they realize the environmental cost. Apparently, their R2 jacket uses 135 liters of water which is enough to meet the daily requirements of 45 people. However, I recently read that this marketing technique resulted in a 30% increase in Patagonia jacket sales.

Blog 23: The New Creation Story: Journey of the Universe

One of Thomas Berry’s main viewpoints is that the universe is primary while humans are secondary. The universe has provided a context in life could function in a meaningful manner. Everything derives from the universe and without it there would be no us. In The Dream of the Earth, Berry writes that it was the traditional story of the universe that sustained us. The earth sustains the human population; we get all of our resources from the universe, food, water, fuel, and sunlight. Sunlight comes not from the Earth but from the solar system. With this in mind it is important to take care of the earth and be stewards of it.

In human history, our role of caretaker of the planet became evident when there was too much emphasis on redemption caused by events like the Black Plague. The Black Plague resulted in a greater religious experience for humans because times were so hard. In a time when germs and science was not known, people had to look to spiritual reasons for why things occurred. Life was so horrible that people looked to the afterlife and redemption as a means of coping with hardship and tragedy. Unfortunately this led to the control and eventual abuse of the physical world. Times like the Black Death were a time when death and destruction were out of control and people looked for amounts of control by using the Earth.

Berry then continues to discuss how humans are unaware in their ability to reflect and be consciously aware. Because of this, a new way of understanding is required so there is a shift in attitude towards the Earth and Universe. We are returning to a more traditional context of story as our source of understanding and value.  We need to see the universe as an evolutionary process that the Earth is viewed as. The film, narrated by Brian Swimme, Journey of the Universe, discusses how the universe is continually expanding. Brian Swimme is an evolutionary cosmology and philosophy professor who believes that everything in existence has both a physical and spiritual existence. He believes that the divine has a role and is embodied in the universe. Furthermore, he argues that in Big History science, as previously discussed, there are many inexplicable coincidences that made the earth what it is today. Everything that happened in the Big Bang had to occur in perfect harmony, and even a minuscule difference would have meant the end of the universe. Consumerism became the dominating world religion rather than established traditions. To Swimme, overpopulation and living beyond your needs are problems in today’s society. He advocates for a simpler life based on the modern understanding of the universe by motivated by ancient spiritual practices.

As a science student, I think that Swimme’s position in an interesting one. He does not refute the Big Bang and basic science, but he also tries to find an explanation for enigmatic events in Big History. Not everything in the natural world is explainable. Even events such as life and death are not fully understood. Swimme seems to have a grasp of understanding on the natural and spiritual realms.

Blog 22: Ecotheology

Ecotheology is an ethic similar to Aldo Leopold’s land ethic and Taylor’s Biocentrism, but also applied to spirituality in some form of God. Historian Lynn White, Jr. says that “Christianity in the former sense that is as a historical institution in the Latin West when he blames Christianity for the part it has played in fostering an attitude of human arrogance towards nature” (VV 43). His focus is not on how one ought to interpret biblical texts but how biblical texts have been interpreted historically and how those interpretations have fit together with the emergence of a democratic culture and the growth of science and technology to produce ecological crisis. Because of Christianity, people have adopted a worldview that is planetary management when it should be at least stewardship or even Earth Wisdom. White believes that man’s dominion is not an arbitrary rule rather that is a stewardship of all Earth’s creatures.

His view stems from human’s role in agricultural practices that are often found in the bible. Unfortunately this was the start of Humans abuse of the environment. Christianity also caused an inclination towards perpetuation of progress. White argues that science and technology alone cannot fix our ecological problems. He suggests that a change in ideology is necessary. Simply, our attitude toward nature is rooted in the Christian Dogma.

Reverend Dr. Andrew Linzey argues that animals are abused in Christianity. He writes that “Christians have spent more than 10 centuries anathematizing, cursing and reviling the animal world” (VV 59). He even states that the word animal is a term of abuse in connotation because it is bestial in its sense. He argues that the whole world needs to be loved, of course including others than human beings. He writes that “What has not been seen is that the love o God is inclusive not only of humans but also all creatures” (VV 60). For people who are concerned for justice in our dealings with animals there are three things that he thinks humans should learn: we must not hate even those who hate animals, we must not hate, even the Church, and we must not hate one another.

Finally, Thomas Berry thinks that the Earth is primary and humans are only derivatives, meaning that our sense of superiority is false. Our current system of living is at a cost to the Earth.  He explains the evolution of the universe and life as a “universe story” with a spiritual component  created by a God. He argues that nature is the expression of the divine. I think this relates to biocentrism because when people experience an awe-inspiring sight in nature, such as a sunset or the view from atop a mountain, people feel connected to nature and people attribute that connection to a divine being.

Blog 21: Biodiversity Loss & The 6th Mass Species Extinction Event

One of the main themes of this course is that every action has a consequence and possible solutions to problems can have a greater effect than originally intended. Before humans destroyed the environment, one species could be eliminated but another would take its place. The rates of evolution and extinction were equal. Because now a great number of species are going extinct at a startling rate, ecosystems are decaying. A healthy ecosystem is a diverse one: an ecosystem requires diversity to resist disease, evolve, for medicinal applications, and for proper niche space. In the past, the earth has gone through five major events that impoverished life. However, after each episode, it was able to recover to its previous level of diversity. Earth is currently experiencing a mass extinction event. Ninety nine percent of all the species that ever lived are now extinct. E. Wilson in The Diversity of Life explains that because of the recent mass extinction event, there is an “ethical imperative” for prudence (VDV 465), specifically saying that there is no excuse for the human race to let any species go extinct.

Tropical Forests and Their Species: Going, Going…? a piece by Norman Myers who also supports the theory of a mass extinction episode, or “a sudden and pronounced decline worldwide in the abundance and diversity of ecologically disparate groups of organism” (VDV 529). Myers explains that there is no way to conclusively know for sure the actual rate of extinction currently, and we can’t come close to accurate estimates.

The film, Call of Life, explains the effects of mass extinction events. Because humans are not on the list of extinction, yet it does not make this crisis in not only nature, but human nature less significant. The loss of diversity, overpopulation, cascade effect, etc. Unlike the previous five mass extinction events, the sixth, or the one we are in now, is caused by humans. Only humans are responsible for the reversal of such diversity loss. The frightening this is, we depend on many of these species and organisms and once a species is extinct it is gone forever. It is not just demolishing a forest, which is replantable. Once a species is gone there is no reversal, so humans must start now. Habitat loss, invasive species, pollution, climate change, over-exploitation of resources, and above all—the factor that magnifies all the others—human overpopulation all contribute to this event, and only when they are remedied will there be reversal of the loss of diversity.

Biologists and paleoecologists estimate that humans have caused about 1,000 species to go extinct in our 200,000 years on the planet. Since 1500 we have killed off at least 322 types of animals, Now it is estimated that another 20,000 or more species are now threatened with extinction according to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. The population of any given animal among the five million or so species on the planet is, on average, 28 percent smaller, thanks to humans. However, it is not too late to try to bring back endangered animals. In the past there have been successes with reintroduction of endangered animals such as the grey wolf and American Bison in North America. Some scientists suggest that a possible solution to species lost is to relocated species to different climates due to climate change. However, I think this poses a problem to species that live in cold climates such as the arctic. Polar bears are already struggling with the ice caps melting and habitat loss due to a decrease in ice floats. Regardless, there needs to be a major shift in human perspective and motivation to decrease the mass extinction event.

Blog 20: Biocentrism

In The Ethics of Respect for Nature,  the author Paul Taylor discusses that life-centered systems need not be holistic or organicist in what it deems as appropriate subjects if moral consideration. He argues that it is “the good of individual organisms, considered as entities having inherent worth, that determines our moral relations with the Earth’s wild communities of life” (VDV 201).  This is a “life-centered” theory rather than a human, anthropocentric theory. Non human inhabitant is right by two main criteria: that they have consequences (positive or negative) to humans, or that they are consistent with a system of norms that protect human rights. Taylor proposed his “life-centered” view as opposed to human-centered views. The life-centered view makes it possible for species of all sorts of organisms to exist healthily in a natural state. Their well-being, including human beings, is something to be realized as an end in itself (202). There are two other factors contributing to this: one is the good, meaning well being, welfare, of an organism and the second is the possession of inherent worth. Well being may vary from situation to situation. The individual health of an organism may be that it is healthy, while the overall well being of a community may be how it’s maintained from generation to generation. It is important to note that the overall is not interest dependent, meaning the “concept of a beings good is not coextensive with sentience or the capacity for feeling pain” (203). The second point regarding inherent worth is dependent on the principle of moral consideration and the principle of intrinsic value.  The principle of moral consideration dictates that wild living things are deserving of the consideration of all moral agents because they are members of earth’s community. This does not depend on the species the creature belongs to.  Basically, every individual is deserving of consideration. Now, on the issue of intrinsic value it is to say that it is good is deserving of the concern and consideration of all moral agents, and that the realization of its good has intrusive value, to be pursued as an end in itself and for the sake of the entity whose good it is.

Taylor’s main point regards that we should adopt a certain “ultimate moral attitude toward the natural world” (204). When humans adopt such an attitude for respect for nature as an ultimate moral attitude, we make a commitment to live by certain normative principles. These principles are ultimate and moral. Taylor states that the biocentrism outlook on nature has four main parts:

1. Humans are members of Earth’s community of life, on the same terms as other organisms
2. The earth’s natural ecosystems as a totality are seen as a complex interconnected web
3. Each organism pursues its own good
4. The notion of human superiority on the basis of moral consideration and inherent worth is to be rejected

 

Can plants feel? The New Yorker Article, The Intelligent Plant, discusses the possibility that plants have to feel. Many studies show that plants have similar homologous structures to the nervous system of animals, including certain neurotransmitters such as serotonin, dopamine, and glutamate. Other studies discusses how these are homologous structures and not identical structures. They may in fact just be a reaction to stimuli like light and nutrient availability rather than being sentient. This is an interesting argument to me because I have a very strong science background studying environmental science. It’s difficult for me to perceive a plant as a sentient being because I’ve studied their biological makeup. Plants have processes like phototropism and gravitropism that make seem like they are sentient, however plants just respond to their environment, such as a plant moving towards sunlight. Plants are too simple, in my opinion, to feel. Even plants such as the Venus Fly Trap, that seems to have animalistic qualities, act in response to stimuli not feeling. The Venus fly trap is able to capture a fly by concentration gradients of chemicals in signal transduction pathways of the molecular level. This is similar in structure at the very basis to how animals respond to pleasure or pain; however it stays at the basic level. Animals’ nervous systems become more complex, and I believe that is why they are sentient while plants are not. The fly trap doesn’t eat the fly either, like a wolf would eat a rabbit; the fly is dissolved through the secretion of enzymes, and then nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus are absorbed. These are nutrients the plant does not get through the soil. 

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/23/the-intelligent-plant?currentPage=all

Blog 19: Animal Rights: Holism vs. Individualism

In J. Baird Callicott’s Animal Liberation: A Triangular Affair, Calllicot advocates a holistic, non-anthropocentric environmental ethic. Callicott conceptualizes a triangular relationship between the ethical theories of anthropocentrism, nonanthropocentrism concerned with individuals, such as animal welfare and biocentrism, and nonanthropocentrism concerned with nature as a whole and the biotic community, based on the principles of ethical-holism. He criticizes Aldo Leopold’s idea of Land Ethics because he sees his extensionist philosophy to be extremely hypocritical. He explains how in western culture, there are hardly any extension of rights to nonhumans and the abiotic components of the earth system. Aldo Leopold’s Land Ethic argues for the extension of rights to the land: soil, water, river, etc. however he hardly mentions animals in his land ethic. Leopold saw the Land Ethic as a cultural “evolutionary possibility” as the next “step in a sequence.” Leopold never considered the treatment of factory farm animals because he cared more about the ecological affects of treating the environment poorly. Callicott viewed Leopold as hypocritical because he hunted and ate meat and that he also argued for moral extensionism.

Callicott argues that Singer and Regan’s animal rights in terms of “individualism” is not reasonable, but a “holistic” approach is more appropriate. The value of a member of a community is not definite. It is actually relative to the overall effect that individual has on the system as a whole. The overall is more important than the individual parts, according to Callicott. Because of this principle, different values and principles must be given to different individuals of a community or system. The more value goes to something that has a greater effect on the whole. Similarly, the lesser effect something has, the lesser value and therefore protection it has.

This is a very different approach than Regan and Singer, who argued for individualism. According to both Singer and Regan, no matter the significance or insignificance, animals deserve rights because of their sentience and ability to feel pleasure and pain. Liberating animals is unrealistic. Releasing such animals into the wild would disrupt natural ecosystems. More reformist policies should be adopted such as, free range, and smaller scale local farms.

I agree with Callicott’s position because he rationalizes the need for animal welfare reform in today’s context. It may not be realistic for everyone to become vegetarians, but it may be more realistic for people to think about where their food comes from and how animals are treated in the process. He advocates for smaller scale, organic and local farming techniques or anything that wouldn’t have an overall negative impact on the environment. However, I’m not even sure that is a possibility for most people on the planet just because of the sheer number of people on this earth, most of which live in poverty and are not in positions to not eat factory farmed meat.

Blog 18: VanDeVeer’s Two Factor Egalitarianism

The last two blogs discussed Singer and Regan’s egalitarian animal rights. The focus of this blog entry is to discuss VanDeVeer’s hierarchical animal rights. He argues for an ethic that weighs better human value in comparison to animals. He argues that an animal’s interest is not to suffer. VanDeVeer also says that it may be acceptable for an animal to suffer, to have pain, because it may be in the interest of the animals because there may be an overall positive result because of it. According to VanDeVeer there are five major speciesist views: Radical Speciesism, Extreme Speciesism, Interest Sensitive Speciesism, Two Facto Egalitarianism, and Species Egalitarianism. The first three are speciesist which weigh human interests greater than animals, while the last two are nonspeciesist which value animal rights.

Radical Speciesism is the view that “it is morally permissible, ceteris paribus, to treat animals in an fashion one chooses” (VDV 152). Extreme Speciesism is the view when “there is a conflict of interests between an animal and a human being, it is morally permissible, ceteris paribus, to act that a basic interest of the animal is subordinated for the same of promoting a peripheral interest of the human being” (VDV 153). Interest Sensitive Speciesism is the view that “when there is a conflict of interest s between an animal and a human being, it is morally permissible so to act in an interest of an animal is subordinated for the sake of promoting a like interest of a human being but man not subordinate a basic interest of an animal for the sake of promoting a peripheral human interest” (VDV153). Those three views value humans and view animals as subordinates in some ways.

In contrast, Two Factor Egalitarianism explains the importance of interests and psychological complexity. The “two factors” of this approach are first the types of conflicting interests and second the degrees of sentience. It stipulates that when there is a conflict between two beings, it is morally permissible to sacrifice the interest of one to promote the interests of the other is the first lack significant psychological capacities that the first one has, to sacrifice the basic interests of one to promote the serious interests of the other is the other substantially lacks psychological capacities, and to sacrifice the peripheral interest to promote a more basic interest in the beings are similar (VDV 154). Here, VanDeVeer outlines the differences between basic interests, which are matters of life and death, serious interests, which are a matter of comfort and happiness, and peripheral interests, which are matters of luxury. The second factor, degrees of sentience, consider the levels of psychological capacities like social consciousness, self awareness and self realization.

Species Egalitarianism is “when there is a conflict of interests between an animal and a human it is morally permissible to subordinate the more peripheral to the more basic interest, but not the otherwise; facts not relevant to how basic the interests are, are not morally relevant to resolving this conflict” (VDV 155). VanDeVeers makes it clear how important that peripheral interests should be subordinate to basic rights and never the otherwise, which promotes animal rights.

I agree mainly with VanDeVeer’s position regarding Two Factor Egalitarianism because it seems the most realistic of the egalitarian viewpoints. I agree with how psychological capacity plays into how humans can treat animals. For instance, yesterday in my genetics lab we put fruit flies to sleep using mustard gas-like equivalent chemical for fruit flies, and we examined them under a microscope and then had to kill them in an ethanol bath because they were mutants and could disrupt the wild type gene pool. My point is that these animals don’t have the psychological capacity to process what we are doing to them. So, it is permissible to use them for human benefit.

How would one measure sentience and psychological capacity in animals? Maybe animals, like the fruit fly, have much simpler sentience and capacities than humans realize. This, however, makes humans using animals as means permissible. Using Van de Veer’s principles, wouldn’t human to human sacrifice also be permissible? A human infant may lack the psychological capacity however, humans typically do not treat them as means to an end. A flaw in Van de Veer’s argument is what justifies such permissibility.

Blog 17: Kantian Approach Towards Animal Rights

Regan’s ethics towards animal rights is mainly Kantian, meaning that he believes we have a duty to treat animals rightly. He believes that animals are also “subjects of life” like humans, so they ascribe to the same values even though they may not be able to be rational agents.  Therefore they are “ends in themselves.” He extends this view to the biotic and abiotic by arguing that while being a “subject of life” is enough for having intrinsic, inherent value, it is not the only criterion. He also argues that an entity may not be a subject of life, and it still may have intrinsic value. He argues for consistency with ideals towards humans and animals because we are all subjects of life. An excerpt from his book explains his viewpoint more clearly:

It involves more than merely being alive and more than merely being conscious. … individuals are subjects-of-a-life if they have beliefs and desires; perception, memory, and a sense of the future, including their own future; an emotional life together with feelings of pleasure and pain; preference- and welfare-interests; the ability to initiate action in pursuit of their desires and goals; a psychophysical identity over time; and an individual welfare in the sense that their experiential life fares well or ill for them, logically independently of their utility for others and logically independently of their being the object of anyone else’s interests. Those who satisfy the subject-of-a-life criterion themselves have a distinctive kind of value – inherent value – and are not to be viewed or treated as mere receptacles.

Regan next discusses contractarianism, which is the moral philosophy that alleges that only individuals who can understand and choose to take part in agreements or “social contracts” have and can have moral rights. Animals cannot understand contract of contractarianism so animals and other beings cannot be accountable to the same type of “social contracts.”

Through a few examples, Regan explains different indirect duty views. He concludes that “Indirect duty views, then, including the best among them, fail to command our rational assent” (VdV 145). He then says that “whatever ethical theory we rationally should accept, therefore, it must at least recognize that we have some duties directly to each other” (145).

The cruelty-kindness view is that humans have a direct duty to be kind to animals and a direct duty not to be cruel to them. It is a basic obligation that humans have towards animals. Through careful assessment of ask yourself who will be affected by your actions you can decide what morally you ought to do.

Regan criticizes much of Singer’s utilitarian and egalitarian approaches to animal rights, which are namely that everyone’s interests count and count equally with the like interests of everyone else. While Singer is more focused on the suffering and pleasure vs. pain of animals, Regan is more focused on the dignity and intrinsic value. Animals have intrinsic value and should not be treated as means only, or as mere resources. If humans have to use animals as means, they should be limited and guided by principles of respect. Regan thinks that this perspective sees humans as being “means to an end” in the happiness principle.

Regan concludes to think that the animal rights movement is part of, not antagonistic to, the human rights movement, which includes women’s, minority, and workers’ rights. Implications for farming and science are both clear and uncompromising. Specifically with science, there needs to be an abolitionist approach, while with the farming there needs to be changes regarding the conditions the animals live in. Animals should have the right to space, even if they are being raised for slaughter.

I agree with Regan’s closing point: philosophy is no replace for political action. Nothing can change without political action. However, there is a need for philosophical understanding of such issues so we can propose a need for change. If everyone agrees that animals are non-sentient and do not deserve certain rights, there wouldn’t be any regulations of animal treatment.