Originally posted by RJT
I'm really, really procrastinating on this last one now - it's on Animal cognition and at what point we should extend them the courtesies of mindful creatures.
I'm just not even sure I'm ready to tackle the issue right now, because in truth I've put it off until last because it's the topic I care about the least - but it'd be nice to just have to go into tomorrow proofreading, and be able to hand everything in relatively early.
Yikes, fun topic.
I have a policy proposal due on Thursday - how to provide security and stability in Northern Uganda... considering I have no earthly idea how to write policy papers, I'm not looking forward to putting my thoughts on paper. So I have a very brief sketch of the historical background, a laying out of the problem, and then a blank void of nothingness.
I don't know if it's really writer's block or just a complete lack of any original thought on the subject. Oh well, I still have some time.
bas
quote:
Originally posted by RJT
<3 you too, brown bear.
:wtf:
:p
:stongue:
RJT
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Yikes, fun topic.
I have a policy proposal due on Thursday - how to provide security and stability in Northern Uganda... considering I have no earthly idea how to write policy papers, I'm not looking forward to putting my thoughts on paper. So I have a very brief sketch of the historical background, a laying out of the problem, and then a blank void of nothingness.
I don't know if it's really writer's block or just a complete lack of any original thought on the subject. Oh well, I still have some time.
Yeah - I hated doing policy papers. I had a 15 to 20 page paper on the future of U.S. foreign policy with regard to Israel and Palestine that was basically just regurgitating facts for 15 pages and suggesting policy for one and a half.
Fun stuff...
Halcyon+On+On
quote:
Originally posted by RJT
I'm really, really procrastinating on this last one now - it's on Animal cognition and at what point we should extend them the courtesies of mindful creatures.
I'm just not even sure I'm ready to tackle the issue right now, because in truth I've put it off until last because it's the topic I care about the least - but it'd be nice to just have to go into tomorrow proofreading, and be able to hand everything in relatively early.
That would be a really difficult topic to write on. Personally, I'd have a much easier time looking at it from the other end - when does human cognition seperate us from animals and at what point should we look at animals as "lesser" creatures? Seems to me like all this self-aggrandizing is fairly paltry.
If you can pull it off with gusto though, do so. I'd really like to hear a stance on when animals can be proven "as smart as humans" or at least comparably intelligible enough for us to somehow respect that species over another.
RJT
See, the thing is, I don't really even care at all about it - I'm comfortable taking the lazy approach and saying "Indications of pain are indications of enough mind to make it wrong to torture animals" and leave it at that - but I'm sure it won't suffice for a 2-3 page paper on the subject (the good news being that it's only a 2-3 page paper and no longer).
Halcyon+On+On
That's not an invalid approach at all - in fact, I very much agree with it. But I can understand your situation, I think - there's not a whole lot of substance to go with that position. I really don't know of any specific experiments being conducted on animals to evaluate pain thresholds, as most official conductions would rule something like that utterly unethical, for obvious reasons. Perhaps you could do research on Nazi pain/torture testing though? I recall reading about how they would see how far needles could penetrate eyes before the person completely blacked out - or how much surface area a needle could displace before anything was in fact felt by the victim. I think you could take a strong stance with material like that on how, when under experimentation, the barriers between human beings and animals become, not only blurred - but decimated, as there is only an animal reflex or an animalistic sensation that creates a sort of unity in such simple concepts.
I dunno, I'd take it somewhere crazy like that though. I know that really helped pique my interest in otherwise boring and tedious assignments.
Ian
lyrics of the week
She took my hand and I let her go
She broke her little bones
On the boulders below,
Took my hand and she ended it all,
Broke her little bones on the boulders below,
And while she fell, I smiled.
made better by when Serj has a girl scream during the 'moment' she falls.
but only stren will know what im on about :(
Lebezniatnikov
Such a beautiful score to this movie.
RJT
quote:
Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
That's not an invalid approach at all - in fact, I very much agree with it. But I can understand your situation, I think - there's not a whole lot of substance to go with that position. I really don't know of any specific experiments being conducted on animals to evaluate pain thresholds, as most official conductions would rule something like that utterly unethical, for obvious reasons. Perhaps you could do research on Nazi pain/torture testing though? I recall reading about how they would see how far needles could penetrate eyes before the person completely blacked out - or how much surface area a needle could displace before anything was in fact felt by the victim. I think you could take a strong stance with material like that on how, when under experimentation, the barriers between human beings and animals become, not only blurred - but decimated, as there is only an animal reflex or an animalistic sensation that creates a sort of unity in such simple concepts.
I dunno, I'd take it somewhere crazy like that though. I know that really helped pique my interest in otherwise boring and tedious assignments.
Well here's what the question was:
quote:
How should we decide whether or not a non-human animal, such as a dog or a chimpanzee, has a mind? What should we take into consideration when trying to answer this question? Or, is the question somehow a bad question, and if so, why? In your answer, please draw on some of the theories or concepts we have discussed in this course.
I chose to respond to the section in bold, and was basically able to bull a 2 page paper about how when we discuss concepts of mind in this fashion we're unfairly projecting human standards of mindfulness on non-human animals; measuring them by standards that we have no business applying to them in an effort to reconcile their experience to our own - and in doing so we disrespect the animals autonomy.
Yup. Maybe not the strongest argument at all - but it was a lot easier to think about than any of line I thought of. :p
Halcyon+On+On
I'd give it an A.
RJT
To be honest, I just remembered something vague from some crazy feminist-environmental-ethicist I studied while I was at Point and just kind of let that single thought evolve through mildly irritated stream of consciousness writing.
