Response to Sarah Jones's Response

I am responding to Sarah Jones's post from last week's discussion regarding our consumption of non human animals.  She was responding to someone else's post- so virtually this is a response to a response of a response.   Sarah makes a valid point that may truly be in our human nature to be compelled to consume the meat of other species. Is that not how other species survive? Bears eat fish and lions eat antelope do they not? However, humans' inhumane manner of commercial slaughter and gross misuse of the species for our gluttonous sustenance is revolting.
   Both Sarah and I practice vegetarianism, so this enables us to see the debate from a different perspective. We are so assimilated culturally to consume meat- it is the focal point of numerous occasions (turkey at Thanksgiving, ham at Christmas, corned beef  St. Patricks Day etc.) I wonder if it is simply an expected social convention or a practice we are forced to endure. As with any personal decision there are social influences that work against our convictions.  Turn on the television and you will be inundated with images of hamburgers, steaks, seafood, chicken, and bacon.  We are continually stimulated to react with hunger and salivation from these images; all in a ploy to perpetuate a system of commercialism and the sale of livestock for financial gain.

State and society' s purpose in our lives.

I want to explore the state and society’s role in our lives, citing Hobbes and Rousseau for examples.  If we follow the optimistic view and resign that the government enacts what they feel is in the interest of the people, and the state exists as a “necessary evil” to determine what will be good for the masses (even if the people do not realize it themselves), does this take away or challenge the free will of the innately good?  If a doctrine is enforced that I do not agree with am I expected to sit idly by and allow it to exist? I understand that Rousseau recognized goodness can be corrupted by poor environmental factors, but would the initial opposition be the result of aggressive personality that my beliefs are above others?  If I am altruistic and believe that public assistance is beneficial to social stability, I do not see any negative result of people being financially supported by the government- does this not seem partially naïve? Wouldn’t it be “natural” for me to question the credence or validity of this lifestyle and the effect or contribution that it has on society as a whole? Furthermore, could I associate myself with abusers of a system generated to temporarily assist in times of need?  Am I in the wrong or are they? (Let me just mention that my opinions of the topic of welfare are neutral, I see the pros and cons. I know people who use it and people who abuse it. Nothing I say will ever change anything; so I might as well stay out of trouble by abstaining from offering my personal views on the issue)

Hobbes vs Rousseau

While Rousseau has important components to his argument, I find myself supporting Hobbes’s view of human nature.  I would truly like to believe that we are innately good and that nurturing and environmental factors determine our personalities; however I just cannot.  Was Hitler’s mother  anti-Semitic? (remove mother and insert ANY social influence; person, place, occurrences).  Was he exposed to any factors in his life that guided him in justifying murdering millions of innocent people for his personal beliefs? Did he read a manual that explained exterminating entire races and religions would be in the true interest of the people?  He certainly believed these things himself. If we discuss other brute or corrupt people such as Attila the Hun or Queen Elizabeth our case seems to be confined to particular people.  Now, take into consideration that all of the slaughter needed support.  Followers, sympathizers, executioners, etc. all possess the characteristic traits that Hobbes outlined. 

On an unrelated note, I came up with a couple questions regarding the two arguments.

 1. Is conservatism synonymous to determinism? In Hobbes’s argument he stated that free will does not exist- by elimination does this create an argument for the opposing side?

2.  If I am a supporter of Hobbes’s pessimistic view, is it possible for me to be optimistic about my personal suppression of my negative attributes?  Is this contradictory in fundamental nature, or is my use of the work “optimistic” signifying the varying capacity I recognize each human to possess?

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.