Thursday, February 20, 2014
Russow
One thing that immediately strikes me is how she says she can't say that it's wrong to deprive an individual animal from its natural habitat. She starts the essay describing why it would be silly to compare a species to another calling one more important than another, then moves on to say this. But humans are a species just like any other out there. Do we allow humans to be kept captive against their will? So why are we doing so to other species?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Perhaps in marginal cases such as wrongful imprisonment or children of cultish or fanatically religious parents as a sort of captivity, but even in these cases the consensus is not as universal as it appears with animals. Some argue that animals do not possess individual will, and therefore cannot have any interest in their continued survival or what happens to them. Nifty move if it's in your interests to violate something or someone for profit (emotional or financial). But, this view is counter-intuitive, violates human rationality to a grave degree, and is refuted scientifically. Humans derive a great many “benefits” from the subjugation of animals as we have with people as well. Some of the benefits might be power, tastes, lack of self-examination as a sort of rugged ignorance, and entertainment in the name of preservation. Even in cases where the containment of a species is not so evident, as in hunting, trapping, or fishing, humans assert “dominance”.
ReplyDeleteI don't think we allow humans to be kept against there will. I think that people there are certain people or groups of people who keep others against there will. There are even governments what do that, but as a species or a race, we do not allow enslavement, and even look down upon it. What other species do we keep captive though? Animals in zoos? Domesticated animals? Also, how does one know if another species is being held against there will?
ReplyDelete