An Ideal Space for Interaction

What would an ideal city look like where habitat space was created for people to have pets other than the usual cats and dogs? Of course there are a whole other range that can be listed here.  From the previous chapters it would be interesting to consider a city that would serve as a paradigm to accommodate a wider range of animals.

In short, I believe that it would be impossible to accommodate a wide range of animals in a city characterized by fast pace lifestyles. These lifestyles mirror practices that are already detrimental to human health physically and mentally. Trying to accommodate animals other than pet dogs, cats and other pets that are reasonable to have in a city would be detrimental to the animals and humans as well.


An alternative place for human animals and nonhuman animals to interact and become better acquainted would be a space that would allow for the best possible life. This life would be on where both species can interact neutrally. A neutral space for interaction would be specific to the type of animal needs and at the same time accessible to humans. Such a place may or may never exist but habitat space in a city would not work out due to the many conflicting variables.

Learning about animals in their native habitat

Jamieson, in his piece, talks about a solution to our problems would be to preserve the wild habitats where animals are sustained. I happen to agree with him because I believe that an education about animals in such a context would be highly beneficial. Being that the animals are in their native surroundings information about behaviors, interactions with other animals, habits and the overall raw nature of their existence would provide a more wholesome experience for a human observer.

The only issue here would be that scientific research would be difficult in some regards being that nature is not orderly in regards to the needs of any research endeavor. 

Trivial Human Interests

In Gunn's essay, the term trivial human interests came up. Thinking along the lines of human relationships with animals I started to wonder if the following behaviors are ultimately trivial and therefore have no moral justification: using animals in the circus, keeping animals at a zoo and using animals in movies. My understanding of trivial human interests are interests that are not necessary for survival. What are your thoughts on these activities?

Where do we go from here?

In light of discussing if discounting animal interests is morally defensible I wonder if we should be asking other questions. Such question stem form my belief that we would not have to even resort to experimenting on animals if we research and seek out solutions to problems that exist that cause us harm and sickness. For example, experimenting on animals with drugs that are to help cancer patients, it would be beneficial to ask what can we do to eliminate of significantly mitigate those factor within our society that cause us to have to even develop new drugs. It is within the interest of humans and animals that we explore this question.

We live in a world characterized by mass production and mass demand for products. Often these products that we use are laden  with toxic substances and treated with chemicals poisonous to the human body and mind and ultimately harmful to nonhuman animals.

Thoughts?

I go with Donovan

When engaging in conversations about animal rights, naturally, humans unconsciously or consciously consider their lives more than other nonhumans. This presents a problem in regards to creating an ethic of care. Donovan's piece in the text obviously criticizes the reliance on reason by Regan and Singer. I feel that this touches upon the need to steer away from human centered conversations when speaking about animals. Her theory ultimately challenges us to consider and analyze what in our environment shapes our current attitudes towards the nonhuman animal kingdom and our approach to creating arguments for or against. Reasoning is important but over reliance will curtail efforts to begin to understand animals. 

Your thoughts will be greatly appreciated.  

Introduction

Hello,

My name is Quincy Goodwin and I am a senior majoring in Philosophy and minoring in Business. I am looking forward to the many conversations we will have on the ethics of human relationships to animals. As a meat eater, I am looking forward to hearing the view points of those who choose not to eat meat, and those who do not eat any animal products at all.