11c. Bekoff, M., & Harnad, S. (2015). Doing the Right Thing
Reading: Bekoff, M., & Harnad, S. (2015). Doing the Right Thing: An Interview With Stevan Harnad. Psychology Today
Instructions for commenting: Quote the passage on which you are commenting (use italics, indent). Comments can also be on the comments of others. Make sure you first edit your comment in another text processor, because if you do it directly in the blogger window you may lose it and have to write it all over again.
***EVERYBODY PLEASE NOTE: I REDUCED THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF SKYWRITINGS. BUT THE READINGS ARE **ALL** RELEVANT TO AN OVERALL UNDERSTANDING OF THE COURSE. SO, EVEN IF YOU DO NOT DO A SKYWRITING ON ALL OF THEM, AT LEAST FEED EACH READING YOU DO NOT READ TO CHATGPT AND ASK IT FOR A SUMMARY, SO YOU KNOW WHAT THE READING SAID — OTHERWISE YOU WILL NOT HAVE A COMPLETE GRASP OF THE COURSE TO INTEGRATE AND INTERCONNECT FOR THE FINAL EXAM.***
ReplyDeleteNote: this skywriting is for reading 11d but I don't think it has its own page, so I am commenting it here :)
ReplyDeleteThe authors of “What the COVID-19 crisis is telling humanity” explain the human influences behind the growing reports of zoonotic diseases, like COVID-19. The two most impactful of these being the hunting and sale of wild animals, and the overcrowding of farm animals. In order to hinder the spread and mutation of deadly diseases, the authors suggest outlawing wild animal related business, and switching to plant based food to decrease the strain on the farming system.
“What matters morally is not intelligence, language, or culture—it’s whether an organism can feel.”
ReplyDeleteThis passage raises a tricky question: how can Harnad and Bekoff claim to know "what matters morally" compared to anyone else? If moral consideration is based on minimizing suffering, each person could interpret the evidence differently. For example, scientific studies on fish nociceptors or behavioural responses provide part of the picture, but they cannot capture all populations of fish in all countries or account for every situation. Two people could look at the same study and disagree on whether an action causes too much or too little suffering. However, recognizing sentience—and the fact that organisms 'feel'—is extremely important because it identifies which beings can experience reflexes, suffering, trauma, love, and care, and therefore deserve moral consideration. Yet this is the limit of science: it can point us toward moral concern, but it cannot establish absolute morality. It still leaves questions about how we should act toward them in practice. Without some universal standard of morality or absolute truth, ethical judgments risk being subjective and inconsistent, leaving morality vulnerable to anarchy.