More on "Zoos and Eyes"

Originally I saw no connection between zoos and pornography other than the fact that I dislike both. After our class discussion I understood a little bit better, but still disagree. I feel that a better analogy would have been circuses and pornography.
There is another way in which the argument could have been better. Hannah brought to class the definition of pornography. According to her definition, pornography is essentially obscenity without any artistic merit. If this was the case in the argument in the essay, the argument would have been stronger. The essay specifically used sexual pornography that objectifies women. This is a bad example because it is far too specific. Pornography is no longer just for men to look at women. Women look at women, men look at men, women look at men. Also, because it can be anything obscene, I do not understand why he used the sexual type. People will read it and automatically connect it with sex and be confused as I was when I first read it.
I agree that with both, what is being looked at is an image of what is real, and is not actually true to life. Even with this, I think that pornography is an extreme example. So, I feel that it is pornographic in the sense that it is obscene without artistic merit, but I still feel that it cannot be compared with the sexual pornography.

Peter Singer

In my other philosophy class today, we discussed animal rights. We talked, specifically about Peter Singer. I totally disagree with a lot of what he says. One of the things he said (and they said in No Dogs or Philosophers Allowed) was that being a speciecist was as bad as being a racist. I totally disagree with that.

Singer went further to compare a chicken and a child, and a dolphin and a comatose person. I agree that animals have intelligence and the ability to reason, but i do not think that these things can be compared They are very different things that need to be looked at separately.

No Dogs or Philosophers Allowed: Got Rights

The video interested me, but I had a hard time following some of the conversation. This could be because of how informal it was.

I do not remember who said it, but one thing I liked was that moral rights are sometimes in conflict with legal rights. I mean, I liked the statement, not the idea. I feel that this is very true for both animals and people. I cannot remember if it was animals or people that the speaker was referring to. But, anyways, I feel that some of the rights that we as people have from birth are limited by the laws that we have created to make things "better."

One problem that I had with the movie was that one of the speakers, a blond lady who is a scientist, made a comment about our country being created four hundred years ago.

Zoos and Porn

I agree with the text that zoos are not a good thing. They do not really educate us on animals in their natural environment. Zoos, are to me, one of the most depressing things. The animals always appear sad and lonely.
I do not, however, agree that zoos are on the same level as pornography. I feel that pornography is a bad thing as well, but they are not on the same level. They are two totally different things that cannot be compared.

Consumers and Producers

How could we be merely consumers? There has to be someone or something to provide for us. If people lived in the utopian vision, there would have to be some who did not. This would cause an even bigger rift between the classes. The lower classes would be lower because they would have to do everything, while the wealthy does nothing. If everyone does work, then there is less of a rift, and the classes are more equal. We all must produce and we all must consume. We cannot healthily do just one or the other.

In Response

In response to my last post, David Johnson said: "Rather than 'The unexamined life is not worth living,' perhaps what Socrates meant to say was 'The examined life, for those lucky enough to pursue it, is especially satisfying.'" I agree that this may have been what he wanted to say, but the fact that he did make that slip suggests that he did look down upon those who had to toil. I do not know much about Socrates, but just from that statement, he does sound like he feels that because he is an intellectual that he is a higher person. I am not sure if this really was the case, but that is just the impression that I get.

And I am looking very foreward to ending our discussions on work and moving on to animal ethics!

more on why we work

one of the things we discussed yesterday was the things that various philosophers have said in the past on the topic of work. Socrates said that workers have a lower form of life because they cannot take the time to examine their life. another philosopher said that work was equivalent to pain and since we avoid pain at all costs, we should avoid work as well. yet another said that work is evil because we only do it because we have to. i do not know where they came up with this, but it is totally wrong. i mean, you can examine your life if you are a worker. not that i think that you should have to examine your life to make it fulfilling. as for the second philosopher, not all work is painful, and no work really has to be painful. finally, the third one, we do have to work, but that does not make it evil. people need to work for the world to run smoothly.

i personally like the statement that we are producers as well as consumers. this is so true. we do not merely sit back and get everything handed to us. things just don't work that way. we need to work, to produce.