NYTimes: Taping of Farm Cruelty Is Becoming the Crime

NYTimes: Taping of Farm Cruelty Is Becoming the Crime
http://nyti.ms/14VNRQV

NYTimes: No to Keystone. Yes to Crazy.

NYTimes: No to Keystone. Yes to Crazy.
http://nyti.ms/XZhLiA

NYTimes: In Trafficking of Wildlife, Out of Reach of the Law

NYTimes: In Trafficking of Wildlife, Out of Reach of the Law
http://nyti.ms/Vs0kaG

Article: Pity for a predator: 100 million sharks die each year, conservationists say

Pity for a predator: 100 million sharks die each year, conservationists say

http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/02/17162143-pity-for-a-predator-100-million-sharks-die-each-year-conservationists-say?lite

Need a prescription?

…It was there that her son, Richard, visited a doctor and received prescriptions for Adderall, an amphetamine-based medication for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. It was in the parking lot that she insisted to Richard that he did not have A.D.H.D., not as a child and not now as a 24-year-old college graduate, and that he was getting dangerously addicted to the medication. It was inside the building that her husband, Rick, implored Richard’s doctor to stop prescribing him Adderall, warning, “You’re going to kill him.”

After reading the article, “Drowned in a Sea of Prescriptions” by Alan Schwartz this February in the New York Times (), I’ve learned that our medical system is in need of a change–and fast. This story of a normal college student turning into a prescription drug addict is becoming more and more commonplace–except this story ended in suicide. The article claims that most cases like Richard Fee’s don’t turn out as drastic, most don’t end in suicide. To me the potential for this kind of abuse is way to easy.
How could he have be able to see so many doctors, who were completely unaware of his other prescriptions and warnings against further medication? How could he have been able to fool them all into believing he had A.D.H.D., and how did he convince them he needed more pills? The Fee’s did what they could to help their son–tried to get the doctors he saw to stop enabling him. But in the end there was no help for Richard since it had become too late; the system had already failed him. There are obviously many people who need medications for their treatments (and i have NOTHING against the medications themselves), but there is an increasingly large number of people who are finding ways to abuse this system and these pills (and the our system works now makes it is so damn easy!).

What i got out of this article was that we need to have better screenings to help avoid misdiagnosis by doctors during consultations, and thorough family histories and communication between patient and doctor are essential (not just a five-minute prescription refill). Even if a person isn’t intending to misuse the prescriptions given to them by a physician, they should always inquire with their doctor or get a second opinion if they feel that something isn’t right. We should always be questioning what we put in our bodies since it is our lives that they are affecting.

This story needs to be shared, and Richard Fee’s story heard.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/us/concerns-about-adhd-practices-and-amphetamine-addiction.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 

Penny

My adorable dog penny living it up on my bed.

Animal Cruelty

Enough is enough. How can this kind of heinous treatment of animals be allowed to continue? Sign the petition and spread the word. It is truly sad that most people won’t watch the video because it’s “too graphic” or because they don’t care…we care more about materialistic things than real issues and the real problems occurring on this planet. Yes the video is graphic–that’s because it is real.

Video:
https://secure.peta.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3957
Petition:
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/stop-raccoon-dogs-being-skinned-alive-in-china-for-fake-ugg-boots-suffering-slow-sickening-horrendous-deaths?utm_campaign=share_button_action_box&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition

Cheetahs

in danger of extinction.

Prompt Number Fourteen

The two group projects I choose to write about are the Climate Change group, and the Wilderness Preservation group (my group). My ecological ethicist position made me conclude that the climate change theme of greed from economic systems is an issue that stems from our anthropocentric views, and that our duty should be to the biotic community’s protection and not our own profit. We should all work together to combat climate change, and this starts with changing the way we all live in relation to the environment. The wilderness preservation issue followed my ethic perfectly, because the preservation of the environment will allow areas to recover from human interference. It also appreciates the idea of using resources in moderation, that if we can do so, we will be able to live more sustainably as part of the biotic community.

Two articles that exemplify this issue, are the papers written by Gardiner and Hardin. In Gardiner’s paper, “Ethics and Global Climate Change”, Gardiner discusses how a multi-disciplinary approach is necessary to understand the causes of climate change and to find ways to counteract this crisis. By only focusing on one discipline, you blind yourself from the whole picture—that climate change is really a product of so many different aspects of our lives and of the biotic community as a whole (economics playing a crucial role in increasing its destructive rate). I agree with this holistic approach because no one subject has all the answers to climate change. In order to follow our moral obligations to the biotic community, humanity needs to work together with the rest of the community (and with each other) to come up with solutions that tackle the damage our biosphere has endured.
The other article, “Lifeboat Ethics” written by Hardin, discusses how overpopulation relate to climate change. His analogy of “lifeboats” is, a metaphor that places rich countries in lifeboats that have adequate resources, while the poor countries are left to swim in the water with none. Hardin’s argument is that more affluent countries should not offer aid and support to less affluent countries, because it creates a delusion that these countries are able to continue to function on their own without changing. If this were an environmentally holistic view, it would stress the importance of all countries working together to benefit the biotic community rather than fight over remaining resources. By taking care of each other, humanity will be better able to reach a more environmentally friendly society, and then humanity can respect the environment once more. What we should do is change the policies and systems of more well off countries to more environmentally aware ones, and help the poorer countries reach better environmental standards as well.

In the Wilderness Preservation presentation, the common theme between the different papers was that we need to increase the preservation of wilderness for their many different services they provide for us and the biotic community as a whole. Each paper discussed different methods to achieve preservation, and gave different reasons for doing so. However, they all boiled down to a holistic viewpoint, that stated that we are a part of the environment, and that we should set aside land that as minimal human interference in order for the environment and other species to thrive. By creating these preservations, humanity would be appealing to the inherent value of non-human entities, and through their protection fulfill their obligations to respect the biotic community and know their place as just a part of the greater whole that is the planet.

In her paper, “Letting the World Grow Old: An Ethos of Countermodernity”, Mathews discusses a way to protect the environment, by “returning to nature” through a process of “letting things be”. This means no human intervention, or development that follow abstract man-made ideals, and just letting nature and the land grow old, and follow it’s natural processes. This is a very holistic approach to wilderness preservation because it advocates for the stopping of further development, and for humanity to use what they already have rather than strive for more. Since we are just one part of the planet, I believe Mathews believes that we must allow the rest of the community the ability to fulfill their lives without our intrusion. Another paper written by Callicott, “A Critique of and an Alternative to the Wilderness Idea”, discusses the misconception that wilderness should be areas untouched by man-kind. Callicott refutes this idea that, “…[wilderness is] an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man is a visitor who does not remain” by saying that we are a part of the biotic community. As such, humanity has the right to interact with the environment. The issue is that we need to do so in a way that doesn’t exploit the environment, or simply that we need to set aside land that we can utilize its resources respectively, understanding that they aren’t solely for our use. This is another great example of a holistic view, because it makes the argument that the earth’s resources aren’t just meant for humans. By finding a balance between using and preserving resources, Callicott believes that humanity can return to a respectful  relationship with the land, and that wilderness preservations are the best way to transition to such a  way of life.

In conclusion, I feel that humanity needs to realize our influence on the environment, and how we need to respect nature and realize our role as just a part of it—not its superior—following an ecological ethic. By changing the way we live, we can help fight climate change by living more environmentally friendly, and by preserving the land we can show it and other species respect and fulfill our moral obligation to the biotic community we are just one part of.

• http://parenethical.com/phil149win12/2012/01/26/wilderness-preservation-2/
• http://parenethical.com/phil149win12/2012/01/25/climate-change-themes/
• Based on: http://parenethical.com/phil149win12/prompt-14-the-end/

 

Prompt Number Thirteen

• https://keltramposch.wordpress.com/2012/01/14/prompt-number-five/
• https://keltramposch.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/prompt-number-eleven/

Out of the five posts I chose for my final prompt, I chose my earliest post, prompt five (which followed a more animal liberationist position), and my latest post, prompt eleven (an ecological ethicist prospective). After rereading these posts, I have determined that the concept that runs through both of these posts is inherent value. First described by Regan in our fifth prompt, at first I viewed inherent value to be only equally applicable to individuals because they exist on this earth (unknowingly using a holistic view). This view is confirmed and strengthened once I later read arguments for the inherent value of the land—the environment—and how our moral obligations to the land should come before our human community obligations.

In my fifth prompt, I discussed Regan’s theory of inherent value and found it to be a better way of viewing animals than just by their ability to suffer (their emotions—Singer). Regan’s argument was for animal liberation was based off his belief in the inherent value of all species. Regan emphasizes that all individuals (human or not) have this inherent value, and that, “…all possess it equally, and all have an equal right to be treated with respect to be treated in ways that do not reduce them to the statues of things, as if they exist as resource for others”. In other words, Regan believes that the intrinsic value of an individual should be independent of that individuals usefulness to another individual, and as such should result in the equal respect to all living things. After reading his work, I felt that Regan had a great argument for the equal rights of all animals and all people. If all individuals have the same inherent value, than we should not only treat one another with respect, but also treat other non-human species this way too since they are equally morally relevant.

My eleventh prompt was a response to Shawn’s tenth post, and discussed how we both had similar opinions about Callicott’s solution to Aldo Leopold’s land ethic criticism. Callicott argued that we don’t need to abandon our duties to the human community in order to fulfill our moral obligations to the biotic community (holistic ethic) that Leopold describes. Both of us agreed that the ecological systems are more important than the individuals that make up the system. We both saw the inherent value of the biotic community coming before the rights of individuals, and felt that even though basic human needs should be satisfied, they should not result in the exploitation of the biotic community. Even though we recognized the inherent value of the individuals, we could not condone the blatant waste and mistreatment of the environment for our survival. Using a holistic point of view, I argued that, “…the whole needs to be healthy in order for the parts to survive.” Simply put, if we don’t protect the environment, we are only hurting ourselves since we are a part of the environment and are dependent on it, seeing as the interconnectedness of life is crucial to the system’s functioning.

The connection between these two posts is the use of inherent value of either individuals or of the system. Even though Regan argues for the respect of individuals and Callicott and Leopold argue for the respect of the biotic community, the core of both their arguments rests on the “obscure” value that has no natural property to refer to. Intrinsic value is given simply for the fact that a nonliving or living thing is on this earth and is a part of the biosphere.

This link between these posts helped me develop my ecological ethicist position, because I believe that the biotic community to which we are all a part of gives us our value and that it too has value in and of itself. After my fifth prompt, I did not give any consideration toward the land, and focused instead on the individuals and their inherent worth—I wouldn’t have been able to justify sacrificing one individual for the benefit of the land itself. Even though I have previously argued that we are all members of this planet, I did not see the system as having such value itself, but used this fact to humble humanity into seeing that we are not a superior species. After reading holistic arguments, I began to see that the inherent value of the biotic community should come before our moral obligations to individuals, since synergy (combined effort being greater than parts) makes it so that the biotic community made up of all things has the most inherent value. Even though I understand the desire to fulfill our moral obligations to humanity, I believe that we should only do so as long as we keep the biotic community morally relevant in our decisions. Another link between these two posts is that in both, inherent value argues for the discontinuation of, “…reducing them to the status of things, as if they exist as resources for others.” Although Regan intends the “they” in this sentence to be animals and non-human species, I believe my eleventh post ties this idea into not viewing the biotic community as merely a resource here for our use. We are a part of the biotic community—it does not exist for us, we are not it’s superiors.

 

Based on: http://parenethical.com/phil149win12/prompt-13/