In response to Brandon's post "Dolphins, Apes, Pigs, Whales, and... Parrots!" (2/24/2013):
I would guess that many people usually exclude parrots from the list of highly intelligent creatures because they differ more greatly from humans than do any of the other animals you listed above. Dolphins, apes, pigs, and whales all belong to the class 'mammalia.' Parrots, on the other hand, belong to the class 'aves,' or birds. As such, many people do not consider them when thinking of intelligent creatures, since they are not at all close to a link in the chain of sentient mammals at the top of which are humans. Indeed, due to their differences from mammals and the common misconception that all birds are unintelligent, many people treat them as though they were fish - decorative pets with no emotional needs and few practical ones. This could not, of course, be further from the truth; most parrots are highly intelligent and social animals, and depriving them of attention, affection, space, or anything relating to their physical well-being is extremely detrimental to their psychology, and is an unethical practice perhaps comparable to depriving a small child of those same things.
By restricting philosophical discussions of morality to our own class, people may have more success convincing sceptics of the validity of animal consciousness. Due to the incorrect beliefs many people have about birds, attempting to include parrots in essays on or discussions of animal intelligence might tempt readers/discussers to dismiss an entire argument as obviously batty. An argument focussed instead on those animals most people agree are intelligent may have much greater impact. On the other hand, by ignoring parrots, people contribute to the continued ignorance of these birds' intellectual and emotional needs, and may lose out on a valuable source of information, since in many ways (for example, the way in which they use language, specifically names) parrots are more similar to humans than any other intelligent animals.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Facts and Fictions
In response to Brandon Gaudet's post "A Tailored Mandate" (2/24/2013) (which is itself a response to Sean Edwards's post "To Veg, or Not to Veg" (2/24/2013)):
While it is true that some people cannot sustain the necessary nutrition for good health from a diet entirely free of meat or of animal products, the idea that this is a common state is false. Some vegetarians and vegans are nutrient-deficient, and some sustain negative effects from certain elements of the food they eat to make up for a lack of meat and/or other animal products (for example, soy contains high levels of estrogen, a hormone which can cause emotional and physical problems when in concentration), but this is mostly due to insufficient research and resultant poor dietary choices. A select few have special conditions (some extreme forms of anemia, for example, or an inability to absorb certain nutrients from sources other than meat) which render them unable to adopt a vegan or vegetarian diet, but as stated above, such ailments are not common. Even those who do suffer from some digestive disability or other physical obstacle can often limit their meat consumption to fish, or cease eating dairy while continuing to consume eggs. Such issues aside, many people (including men, women, the elderly, and the very young) thrive on vegan or vegetarian diets; in fact, as long as the dieters keeps track of which nutrients they are consuming, they are typically healthier than people who embrace omnivorous diets.
One related idea, which I find more morally intriguing, is the concept of feeding pets or other animals in one's care with only vegan or vegetarian products. While many animals are naturally herbivorous, or are omnivorous but can easily adjust to a herbivorous diet, many others are carnivores or are omnivores for whom meat is an important part of nutrition. While such animals may be able to survive on herbivorous diets, their health may be negatively affected. Is it ethical to deprive them of some quality of life in order to support the continued existence of other animals?
While it is true that some people cannot sustain the necessary nutrition for good health from a diet entirely free of meat or of animal products, the idea that this is a common state is false. Some vegetarians and vegans are nutrient-deficient, and some sustain negative effects from certain elements of the food they eat to make up for a lack of meat and/or other animal products (for example, soy contains high levels of estrogen, a hormone which can cause emotional and physical problems when in concentration), but this is mostly due to insufficient research and resultant poor dietary choices. A select few have special conditions (some extreme forms of anemia, for example, or an inability to absorb certain nutrients from sources other than meat) which render them unable to adopt a vegan or vegetarian diet, but as stated above, such ailments are not common. Even those who do suffer from some digestive disability or other physical obstacle can often limit their meat consumption to fish, or cease eating dairy while continuing to consume eggs. Such issues aside, many people (including men, women, the elderly, and the very young) thrive on vegan or vegetarian diets; in fact, as long as the dieters keeps track of which nutrients they are consuming, they are typically healthier than people who embrace omnivorous diets.
One related idea, which I find more morally intriguing, is the concept of feeding pets or other animals in one's care with only vegan or vegetarian products. While many animals are naturally herbivorous, or are omnivorous but can easily adjust to a herbivorous diet, many others are carnivores or are omnivores for whom meat is an important part of nutrition. While such animals may be able to survive on herbivorous diets, their health may be negatively affected. Is it ethical to deprive them of some quality of life in order to support the continued existence of other animals?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)