I was searching through PetFinder last night and looking at all the animals. I've never really paid much attention to anything on there besides dogs, but last night I searched each category. I found myself amazed that birds were put up for adoption. We have been looking for a bird recently and I just never knew that people 'dumped' their birds. Then came my shocker. There were snakes up for adoption as well as many other reptiles.
I'm not sure why - but this kind of bothered me. I mean, we emotionally bond with warm blooded animals and they can also form a bond with us. Cold blooded animals are not conditional to this. Snakes don't want to be 'petted'. They don't wag their tails in anticipation of a treat, and they don't snuggle with us in our beds at night. Do we really need to save snakes? For what purpose are we saving them?
That led me to my next question. I don't have a problem with lizards (Iguana's, etc.) so if (in my mind) snakes should not be on our list of saved animals - why should a lizard? They are cold blooded as well. I can't see destroying a lizard, but I can see destroying a snake. I'm holding a double standard here. I'd like to think that lizards which have been in confinement would be placed in a refuge and cared for by someone who knows how to handle them - not made available to the public for adoption. Maybe snakes should have a refuge too?
That even brought me to another question. What about birds? I have never owned a bird, but do they yearn for our attention? Do they crave petting? Every bird I have ever seen was in a cage - and thats where they wanted to be. Sure, people take them out and let them perch on their finger - but do we pet them? If not, then do birds also belong in my classification of our reptilian friends which does not allow for their adoption? I wouldn't want that. Even though I possibly could not bond with a bird, it is still a being which I would consider adopting. Notice the use of the word "I". By using my own beliefs, moral judgement, and ethical thinking, I have made the situation right for "me". In my world, it is ok to destroy snakes (because of my belief that one cannot bond with them), lizards should be placed in a refuge (because I feel some kind of moral obligation to them?) and birds, even though we cannot bond with them like we do with a cat or dog, are ok to adopt (because ethically, I think it is the right thing to do).
Now, lets visit the mind of a reptilian lover. He see's snakes up for adoption and thinks it's a wonderful program. He feels a connection with these reptiles, whether for their scientific value or simply because he finds himself in awe of their body structure, survival habits, etc. He wants to add another type of snake to his collection and knows that adoption would be a great way to home an unwanted snake (because he feels some kind of moral obligation to them?). He adopts the snake and then buys birds and rodents to use for the snakes food (because of his belief that one cannot bond with a bird or rodent, therefore, their life is more expendable). He now sees himself as an ethically good snake owner because he has taken in and cared for an unwanted snake.
Whose moral and ethical beliefs are superior here? Mine? The snake lovers? The truth is - neither. Everyday we read about the 'moral and ethical' treatment of animals, or the 'moral and ethical' way to breed animals, etc. Just what is 'moral' and what is 'ethical'? The views of myself and the snake lover are completely different, yet they are moral and ethical in our own minds. In some countries it is morally acceptable to eat cats and dogs. In our country it is not. Does that make one right over the other? Why are our beliefs superior and theirs aren't?
When we bring the terms 'moral and ethical' into our conversations we must realize that we are really only voicing our opinions of our beliefs. How can it be a fact that it is morally wrong to eat a cat or dog when other people see it as a fact that it is morally ok to do so? The point is - there is no fact, it is an opinion based on many factors in our lives such as environment, religion, personal belief, etc. This is why we have so many heate debates with people concerning these very issues. We strongly believe one way, they strongly believe another - neither is necessarily right or wrong, therefore it cannot be deemed factual as beliefs are not 'fact'. It is a fact that some people believe a certain way, but that does not make their beliefs a fact.
I hear these terms thrown around alot - moral and ethical, but I find them being used as a manner of making others believe that ones way is factual. Facts are found by statistics. We don't say "Morally, there are 6 million dogs pts every year in shelters". That sentence does not make sense. We could go on to say that "Morally, it is the right thing to do - to adopt one of the 6 million dogs that are pts every year". Does this mean we are not moral beings if we don't adopt? What if the sentence were changed to say "Morally, it is the right thing to do - to adopt one of the 2 million homeless snakes that are in shelters"? Does that change it for us? Are we not moral beings if we do not adopt a snake? How about, if the snake lover adopts the snake, I adopt a bird, and someone else adopts a cat? Aren't we all three considered moral at this point? We all adopted. We all are now judged as being moral because of our personal beliefs. I would not adopt a snake, but I would adopt a bird. He may adopt a bird only to feed it to his snake. Neither of us are less human or 'moral' because of our beliefs. To say that my definition of what is moral and ethical is 'right' is to say that my personal bleiefs are superior to yours - and that simply isn't true. Belief has no superiority.
I hope this has interested you some, and I hope it has helped open you up to what the true meaning of moral and ethical is. They are very broad words with meanings that are different to each of us - and they are mis-used everyday of our lives - mostly un-intentional. When debating with others, we must remember that what is 'moral and ethical' to us may not be 'moral and ethical' to them, therefore, sometimes we just have to accept that we are all different people who believe differently about what is moral and ethical. We may not agree with others beliefs, but sometimes, learning about their beliefs opens us up to a whole new world. Why do people believe the way they do? Well, thats another story.
Wow Ansy! Some very good points there. Some people do belive that the way we think as Americans is always right. I do not think that eating cats and dogs is a good thing but I do not go around bashing those countries that do, that is their belief. A lot of people think that the way they do things and the way they think is always the right thing to do. Well it is in their eyes but may not be in others. Part of getting along with others is to listen to their side of the story and try and understand from their part. Which at times can be very hard.
Are you suggesting we flush the work of Immanuel Kant and John Rawls down some metaphorical toilet? Or, are you suggesting we need to think more critically both about how we think and the words we use to express our ideas? I'm with you on the latter, but I'm not ready to give up on the categorical imperative or the difference principle, even if I am stuck in the cave, watching the shadows on the wall.
The phrases "moral fact" and "ethical fact" drive me crazy, too. Facts are something you can confirm through an outside source, things like the number of soldiers killed in Iraq last month or the movie playing on HBO right now. Nevertheless, moral truths may still exist, and unlike facts, truths are proven through reason, like geometry is. I don't claim to know what they are, but surely our capacity for guilt and compassion and our ability to form social contracts indicate they exist.
Unfortunately, what is often passed off as moral truth has little to do with reason, but is based on fear, myth, bad logic, hubris, and whimsy. And so we end up reading statements such as, It is unethical to breed mutts because hybrid vigor is a myth created by BYBs and mills [despite all of the biologists who write about it in scientific journals], and I know it's a myth because I know three mutts with hip displaysia [because three dogs is a perfectly legitimate sample size]. Or, It is okay for me to buy the dog I want from a breeder because I am going to show it [in a contest in which I have no real need to participate], but it is unethical for you to buy the dog you want because you're just looking for a pet [as if a show dog isn't a pet with a hobby].
One of my personal favorites includes: You shouldn't buy a puggle because you don't know what you're going to get. It could be more pug-like or more beagle-like, so it might have breathing and eye problems. Why don't you get a purebred pug instead [so that the dog will have no chance of avoiding breathing an eye problems]?
Morality is as elusive as a true triangle, and the only way we can get anywhere near it is by listening to as many points of view as possible and thinking critically about what we read and hear. Afterall, Plato wrote dialogues, not diatribes. But if we chuck morality up as some meaningless concept, we become like Tom and Daisy Buchanan, careless people, using things and smashing them up, retreating and leaving others to clean up the mess. And such a life is unfulfilling.
__________________
"Thought is an invisible and subtle power that mocks all the efforts of tyranny." Alexis de Tocqueville
What an excellent post! It sure makes a person think! I agree, all of you have brought up some great points which everyone should take into account in their dealings with others. I think all people, with the exception of a small percentage of the world population, do have moral and ethical beliefs. And I also agree those beliefs do have a wide range of scope. Most all I do respect, altho not all do I agree with. In some cultures there are beliefs that I, with peace of mind, can't condone but that is not to say that those beliefs aren't considered moral or ethical to those in those cultures.
quote: Originally posted by: protodog "Are you suggesting we flush the work of Immanuel Kant and John Rawls down some metaphorical toilet? Or, are you suggesting we need to think more critically both about how we think and the words we use to express our ideas? I'm with you on the latter, but I'm not ready to give up on the categorical imperative or the difference principle, even if I am stuck in the cave, watching the shadows on the wall.
Oh absolutely the latter! Critical thinking and word choice are a huge problem in what I'm pointing out. In a nutshell - people use the words 'moral and ethical' to try and make their opinion look more factual or 'believable' such as saying "It is morally wrong to breed cross bred dogs". One may thing - Whoa! If I do that, I'm immoral. NO one wants to be considered immoral. The problem is that this may have worked if you were crossing the seas with Columbus in 1492 - when there were only a few people and one religion. Now that we have a melting pot country where different beliefs live just next door - you're never going to get anywhere by the mis-use of those words.
I may believe that it is immoral to cross breed dogs because it does nothing toward helping the dog - such as keeping breed standard, weeding out genetic problems, etc.
My next door may see it as being morally acceptable to cross breed dogs in search of the perfect sacrifice to offer their God (even though we see that as unthinkable).
Will the two of us ever agree on this topic of what is moral? No. This is why telling someone to do something because it is 'moral or ethical' doesn't work. For the most part, whats moral and ethical is different in all of us. You will find people who believe as you do. Christians believe that sinning is immoral. There, you have a group that believes as a whole. Now, you have Muslims that believe - as a whole - about their belief. To each, their religion is moral - but they aren't the same, so how can the term 'moral' be applied? Who defines what 'moral' is? It's within ourselves, we define it for ourselves - and we must understand that if we ever want to be able to get our views out on any given topic. Word choice - thats the key.
BTW proto - I liked your analogy that a show dog was a pet with a hobby....lol.....made me chuckle - nicely put!
Um. Hum. I guess that acquiring animals to keep as pets has not been too affected by issues of morality and ethics, for me. The manner in which I keep them, and how I view the way others keep them is. I tend to acquire the animal from wherever I can get what I am looking for.Generally, the animal is pleasing to both the senses, and the eye. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. With dogs, I want such a physically specific, genetically monitored individual, that breeding my own, and only keeping the best of the best of those has been satisfactory to me. I am not fussy like that with cats, but there is a certain look that I like, a friend once said my cats were "temple cats". I don't find them, they have always found me. If I was to look for one, I think a shelter would have a fine one. I would know it if I saw it. One's experiences with birds and reptiles, differs apparently. I tend to experience bonds with both people and animals on a level more psychically sensitive than most people do. Not all creatures are sensitive this way. While I don't hold that against them, it does have something to do with whether I want to spend time with them or not. Snakes have a slow open awareness. They also have a sensitivity to emotion, such as fear, and a weird sense of humor. My boas have often enjoyed running their face along my skin, until I could feel their teeth, which was somewhat nerve wracking, but they seemed to like the tension that it created. Both cats and snakes have been regarded as sacred, in human history. While their abilities to safeguard food supplies from rats may have played a part in this, I think that there may be a bit more to it than that. Some birds I have had were intelligent, and understood the words that they used, some were not. I suppose I can say the same about people, so there I would judge them on an individual basis. I like the way some animals think, and is is fun to watch them do it. I find chickens and horses to be amusing and restful. They are also tasty/fun to ride, which makes them an even better thing to have around.
"Thought is an invisible and subtle power that mocks all the efforts of tyranny." Alexis de Tocqueville
soooooooooo,what did ya have for dinner ??????????????????
