For Lack of Inspiration- Continuing My Ideas

This post is usually reserved for commentary on another post; however I decided to forgo that template and write again about the current issue of non human animals and moral status.  As I was reading both articles I began to think about different cultures and their beliefs and treatments of non human animals. I relate these differences as they compare to the American cuisine we are familiar with:  in India the cow is sacred, in America cats and dogs are domestic animals, and in Europe horses and donkeys serve to feed- not entertain. Would it ever be possible to achieve a universal understanding that non human animals are not intended for human consumption? Or does this very idea contradict the chain established during primitive times that consuming the meat of an animal is necessary for survival and sustaining life?  Certainly in other species (non human animals) they eat other animals: Bears eat fish, lions eat antelope, frogs eat insects, etc.  Nutritionally speaking, what animal would provide the most benefit to a diet; and would this impact the acceptance of eating this animal, or are all accepted edible animals based in cultural beliefs and practices? (Could a person who eats Asian cuisine ever be convinced that cats are strictly for domestic purposes, due to their deeply rooted cultural customs).  I personally find consuming animal meat grotesque, and this may contribute to my sympathies towards non human animals and their rights. I have removed myself from mass cultural disillusions that as homo sapiens we require blood, flesh, and muscle from another living being to survive.  There is one issue I hope someone debates; Where do eggs fit into this debate?

Maturity

Citing Harlan Miller's article once again, I found the paragraph regarding maturity particularly interesting.  The varying degrees of maturity are for the most part culturally, politically, and socially determined.  I think that we need to be personally aware of our capacities and developmental stability.  The government dictating that at 16 one is legally free to copulate and operate a motor vehicle is absurd.  Furthermore, the legal separation from ones parents at age 18 creates serious financial, emotional, and personal damage.  I will not evaluate the legal age at which one can purchase alcohol, as it is a moot argument founded primarily in fierce subjective opinion (none of which affects me).
  I will personally say that I did not experience a cataclysmic development until I was about 21 years old. I should have not been legally able to drive at 16, or at age 18 had financial responsibility impressed upon me.  Every situation varies; and I understand my opinions may face great opposition.  However, since my "coming of age"  in which my perspective was drastically altered (an event I was aware of but did not consciously incite) I experience, interpret, analyze, understand, and observe life and all aspects of every imaginable facet differently. 
I understand how different mental capacities are exceptions in these cases, and I respect them but this argument is for general concepts and the interrelation between politics and society- considering safety, emotional and physical stability, and financial outlook. 

Regarding Science and Subjective Impressions

Harlan Miller's article "Science, Ethics, and Moral Status"  touched on subjective impressions and their presence in philosophy and science.  Subjective impressions are the result of familial and cultural influences throughout our lives.  This "base", as I will term it, impacts and ultimately determines our decisions regarding research and various other pursuits (in science and other disciplines). For this blog I will focus exclusively in regards to scientific matters.  As a biology student, I am well aware that my interests and decisions formulate from personal beliefs and interests.  I am broadly categorizing this next question:  Do all scientists study what they feel needs to be explained?  Not only is it plausible, it seems universally true.  Amongst the scientific realms there are chemists, biologists, medical researchers, physicists, anatomists, environmentalists, etc.  As a physician the specialty one chooses is (or should be) based on academic strength, interest, and personal compatibility.  An environmental studies individual will pursue the branches of life that interest them- going further, can pursue protection and advancement in their field.  Do you find this is true, even in other aspects of study? Obviously in science pursuing specified research topics demonstrates subjective impressions' presence in our decisions; is it easily discerned in anthropology, technology, mathematics, philosophy, culinary, engineering, etc.?

Response to Siearra's Post "Patrio-Country?"

Siearra poses an interesting topic in her blog post "Patrio-country?".  She explores the definition of patriotism given extenuating circumstances of one individual identifying with a foreign nation more than their birth nation. If the individual relocated to their new desired country and formed affection towards that nation would they still be considered patriotic.  I found this very interesting, deconstructing the broader concepts and the intersection of personal instances that can cause debate.
I began to think:  What if their dedication and support to another country occurred when they were citizens of their birth nation? Would this still constitute patriotism towards Russia or would it be considered a betrayal against the United States?  What if a person was adopted and their affection for their birth nation was stronger than their adopted location? How would the premise adjust to this situation. 

Jensen's Argument about Patriotism

Jensen make extremely poignant and effective arguments in his article "Saying Goodbye to Patriotism".  I was struck a number of times within the first few pages with just how successful he is with correlating his ideas of patriotism being morally devoid and examples from history and present policies.  Jensen writes "I want to put forward the radical proposition that we should care what the facts are. We should start with the assumption that everything about the United States, like everything about any country, needs to be examined and assessed.  That is what it means to be a moral person".     Is this not the fundamental procedure to achieve critical thinking? By making this relation between assessment and examination with critical thinking and comparing the lack of both in regards to patriotism is enough to convince me (my opinion is easily persuaded, especially in this case where patriotism has never been a component in my personal life).
  Jensen further proposes that instead of the conventional method of patriotism in which one assumes their nation is above all others, that person should support their nation for their strengths (not in relation to other countries, just on the basis of how the particular concepts of their nation affect them) and admit their shortcomings.  By participating in this altered sense patriotism would not posses such a stigma of one nation superior from another due to personal opinion. Instead, it would be a recognition and appreciation of the strengths of a nation, while admitting there could be improvements. 
After reading Jensen's article and considering his examples of the shortcomings within America, would you ever consider moving to another country?  Once there would you consider being patriotic for your previously foreign, now domestic, land?

Exploring Extremes of Nationalism

While the concept of patriotism has interesting components, I find myself desiring to explore nationalism further.  Probably due to the intrigue created by chaos and disagreements that I often mind myself attracted to.  Anyhow, we talked in class today about nationalism being based on ideals in subculture in addition to countries.  What are the boundaries of nationalism and who determines them? When an nationalist organization is created, does the opinion of the "leader" determine the primary parameters of the specified group or do the majority opinion decide?  If a group is created in support of women's' rights, for example, is the enterprise exclusive to accepted members?  Would men be allowed if they supported the cause?  These questions falsify the stability of nationalistic ideals, in my opinion.  How can one respect or understand the basis for groups that are unregulated in selecting their aspects?  On a different note, how does this support for subcultures impact the totality of our universal culture? Is there a truly universal culture, or do we ascribe culture based on general assumptions about characteristics of the masses. If a person is not at all patriotic or nationalist do you consider them contributing members of their respective country or cause?

Coincidence, I think not. Or, so.

This post was not anticipated, a mere result of a coincidence I experienced today.  We discussed in class the specifics of nature and nurture with an example of how intellectual capacity is affected by nature and nurture.  If an intelligent person is born to average intelligence person, is it the result of nature or nurture that they embrace and succeed in their abilities? We also discussed if a person suffers an injury how would that correlate to this debate.  Today I found myself reading an issue of Popular Science magazine when I came upon the featured article titled "The Genius Within".  The article explored Savant Syndrome and cited three examples of average people who had suffered head injuries and acquired extraordinary talents they had previously no interest or skill in.  Where does this concept exist in the nature vs. nurture debate?  What would Pinker do with this example?