Talking Gorillas

I think what was done to koko was unethical on many grounds. first of all Koko was raised to be a human and not a gorilla. Koko wasnt allowed to live as her nature intended. Instead she was forced into a very closed world of which she couldnt possibly understand. Koko's contact with her own kind was also minimal and her whole life became an incessant school lesson. Koko's life was dominated by experiments. Whether you believe in animal experimentation or not, to make an animal's life one long and frustrating experiment is unethical. Even if there might have been a connection between Penny Paterson and Koko, she nevertheless, did not have the life of a gorialla. Also the researchers were unethical on legal grounds. It is debatably whether or not someone can own an animal, nevertheless, you can definately decided that someone has the ability to make decisions for an animal. In this case the Zoo had the privilage of deciding what was best for Koko, not the researchers who kept Koko against the Zoo's will.

Koko

Today's movie was very interesting. One things that intrigued me was Koko's personality. For some reason I felt that Koko was sad, mad, or frustrated more than she was happy. I got this vibe that she was trying to please her owners but she didn't know what they wanted from her and the owners were just guessing what Koko wanted. It was very interesting to watch Koko's daily life and how much she can learn. However how should humans intervene in Animal's life? Yes Koko is an exception but what about other Animals. If a specie is going extinct should we humans intervene or should we let nature control the species fate? Part of me wants to intervene and save all the animals, but the other part of me thinks that we should let nature decide who or what lives. Nature is a powerful force and I feel that humans should not mess with nature.

Respect for Nature

The things we learned about Paul Taylor and his thoughts on Respect for Nature are somewhat difficult for me to understand because the biocentrism he talks about is supposed to have nothing to do with emotion or sentimentalism or any attachment to animals. I believe our ability to become attached to animals is something that shouldn't be shunned because it isn't reflecting arguments made for biocentrism, but rather embraced and used to do what we can for nature. I agree with the thought, "other beings besides ourselves have goods and we have a duty to respect those goods" but, as my last blog mentions, i wish it didn't have such an anthropocentric weight on it. If someone finds themselves attached emotionally to a particular animal or wildlife movement to save different species then so be it. I guess this is where I come to really appreciate the idea of flannel ethics and doing what you can in order to make some kind of difference.

Ethics of Noble Humanity?

Our in class discussion on anthropocentrism vs. biocentrism was very intriguing. Thinking about the human way of life and our way of thinking in these terms really shed new light on exactly what Kohak is trying to convey throughout The Green Halo. For humans to think that all value is only human value and things and animals are only important because we feel that to be true is almost disgusting. This ethics of noble humanity is far from noble in my opinion and the "indirect duty" is merely a notch in our totem pole rather than a sincere acceptance and appreciation for nature. Based on this duty, humans aren't cruel to animals and non human/aesthetic aspects of nature because it is inconsistent with their dignity as human beings to be cruel - it is a duty to ourselves and about us rather more than anything. Based on what we have been reading, the animals and plants aren't included in the kingdom of ends so it can't be a direct duty...but it needs to be.

Sociobiology

I thought that the idea of sociobiology was very interesting. Trying to interpret human behavior in terms of our genetic past and who we evolved from can cause some conflict. I never really considered that we act like wolves. When wolves go out and hunt, they bring food back for the entire pack. They have high family values, as most human beings do with only having one mate. The experts say that humans get their tendencies toward infidelity and divorce from chimps. Chimps get food for themselves and do not have a single partner. Humans are in conflict with how we live in contrast with our genetic past, our wolf culture and chimp past. They both have different tendencies. We need to understand our natural inclinations and avoid their temptations. These inclinations do not justify our behavior and it is unecessary. We should understand the tendencies of chimps, which may be some of our own tendencies, and strive to be better than them. Someone can't justify infidelity, by saying it is a genetic tendency that they have. Human beings need to overcome their chimp past and rely more on their wolf culture.