Animal Rights

One of the most famous quotes that have been utilized to govern our society was said by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. He stated that “The right to swing my arms in any direction ends where your nose begins” in other words a person’s rights end where someone else’s rights begins. It has been clearly stated that people have rights, but what of Animals? The issue of animal rights has been one of the most volatile contemporary issues of our time due to the new methods that has been developed which violates animals. Animal rights is a very difficult topic for many because animals are used for many items that we consider to be essential therefore if rights are given to animals these items would not be available anymore and that is the major issue.   

Before the discussion in class about Animal rights, I thought about animal rights more so in the context of the abuse of domesticated animals and animals living in the wild.  I am not sure if it was because I was conditioned to not think about the animals that I actually ate as being violated or abused but I have never thought about animals like chickens, in retrospective that was very naive of me. To some extent I thought about cows and pigs but not the same way that I thought about dogs or horses. I actually thought that the research that was being done using animals was necessary but I did not know how it was being done and those scientists were torturing them in the ways that were in the video that was presented to the class.

In the previous blog about personal principles I did not address animal rights, before the reading the articles that were assigned and class discussion I was passive about most aspects of animal rights. My personal principle before the class reading and discussion were basic because I did not believe that animals in general should be tortured but I also believed that humans were superior mentally. As far as livestock was concerned I did not believe that they should be kept in small spaces and kept from roaming freely. However, I also thought that utilizing livestock was a natural process that has benefits in the grant scheme of things. However after reading the article by Peter Singer my opinion changed. Peter Singer stated suffering should be the basis as to how people determine the rights that an animal should have. The mere fact that we can see that the animal is experiencing pain should be reason enough for people to not treat them in the way that we do. One of the videos that were presented in class showed a dog being electrocuted and it was obvious that he was suffer because the dog cannot verbally express that he or she was in pain does not mean that we have the right to continue to torture them. The combination of the videos and article essentially made it clear that I was being very insensitive and as Singer stated a “specist”. To be able to consider myself as a morally up standing person I would need to stop being insensitive, a specist and most importantly not eating animals. By not eating animals it would be a chain reaction because if people are not buying the animals then it would not be a profitable business this would decrease the amount of animals being slaughtered and tortured.

 The philosopher’s position that was least consistent with my own principles is Carl Cohen. Carl Cohen’s position is least consistent with my principles because he states that animals cannot have rights because the very concept of rights is “human”. The example that he utilizes which compares a rat having rights to a table having ambition is grotesque fundamentally. The first issue that I have with this example is that he equates a living thing to an object. One cannot compare a rat having the rights to a table having ambition because a table never lived it does not have any mental processes consequently it would be ridiculous to think that it would have ambition. Unlike, a rat that is fully capable of suffering, which mean it has the right not to be put through painful methods. Cohen’s perspective on rights is faulted as well; it is true that the term was originally coined for humans, but at one point in history rights were limited to one ethnicity and other ethnicity was not considered as being worthy of rights. The point I am making is that we as people grow we better understand others; we evolve and become more understanding to people or things that are not like us in nature. It is barbaric to think that because we are humans we are superior to animals.

In sum, the rights of animals is a topic that should be taken very seriously, because they are essentially to us maintaining a healthy planet thus it is vital that we treat animals as the essential cohabits of the planet.

Sexual Morality

Sexual Morality

Throughout the course of history there have been numerous controversial matters. One of the issues that has the most double standard is sexual morality. Religion has been the corner stone for centuries dictating what is moral and what is also considered immoral. The issue with religion and society being the corner stone of what is considered moral is that males were the ones in charge of making rules, therefore the rules are skewed in the favor of men. One of the biggest issues with sexual morality is that there was a double standard and there still is a double standard. As a society today pretend that we don’t really care about sexual morality of a woman having sexual relationships with random partners but the bottom line is that if a female writes a post on social media that she sleeps with random partners daily and a male posted the same situation on social media, the female will be called a variety of derogatory terms while the male will be praised for his sexual prowess.

The contemporary issue of sexual morality did not affect my personal principles, or the social principle anarchism. Sexual morality in the anarchist society is interpreted differently than that of a communist society. In an anarchist society people are free of any social norms has to which they should live by. In an anarchist society the individuals who live in each community makes the rules, there are no churches, no marriages, no state, therefore they follow what they believe is moral and just. As appose to the communist society that is governed by social norms and state which dictate what is moral and just. Therefore, I think that it would be likely that sexual morality is very conservative, restricting individuals especially women to one partner. As for my personal principle which were to be respectful, polite, and helpful to everyone but most importantly to the elderly. In reference to my personal principles, if the persons involved with the sexual acts are respectful to each other’s wishes it would be moral to have sex with as many people as the person desires for as long as they want because there is mutual respect. As with the example of having relations with animals it wouldn't be moral according to the personal principles that I have indicated because they is not a way for an animal to be respectful and polite to the human involved by virtue of the fact that the animal cannot communicate consent therefore it is indeed a violation of one of the parties involved. Thinking about my personal principles in reference to the sexual morality helped me to differentiate between what I thought was moral and what is not.

Alan Goldman’s philosophy of sex I believe would be the closest to my personal ideologies because he makes excellent point regarding sex and what is it. As Goldman stated when a person is attracted to another person’s personality they do not generally want to continue to speak to the individual, they usual desire physical contact with this person.  This physical attract can result in the person feeling very comfortable and much closer to person then before. The desire for physical contact also follows Taoism in the sense that Taoism says to essentially partake in activities that make one truly happy. Therefore if having sex with one hundred people makes the person happy by all mean they should “get their freak on”. Nonetheless I can say that they are many flaws in his paper because mankind cannot be painted in black and white, we are far too complex beings.

in sum, i believe sexual morality should be a personal choice that should not be judged by others.

Social Principles

Social Principles



The adaptations of social principles that govern societies should be decided with great discretion because these principles affect and influence not only one generation but also future generations. Ernest Hemingway once said “ About morals, I know only that what is moral is what you feel good after and what is immoral is what you feel bad after. “  When deciding which social principle to adapt it cannot be simply stated in black and white because life is far more complex there are numerous grey areas. I found that various aspects of the principles that were provided with in the reading had positives and negatives.  In a perfect world, I think that a combination of the positives of each principle would result in the prosperity of all citizens.

The social principles for which I found to be most captivating are communist and anarchist. In any society the number one priority is the people that live within the system. Therefore, it is in the best interest of the people to choose a system in which everyone lives comfortably.  In a communist society, the entire construct is ensuring that everyone lives comfortably which mean that poverty doesn’t exist and there is more of an emphasis on family. The social construct that we live in America doesn’t really account for families, it is a constant rush. In a communist society due to fact that people have a fixed income there is no need for over time. In communist nations families have time to be together to nurture their children and to ensure that everyone is properly taken care of. Another principle that I found to be compelling is Anarchism this principle is interesting because people and communities are the most significance subject when “policies” are being agreed upon.

In my previous blog I wrote about my personal principles which were to be respectful, polite, and helpful to everyone but most importantly to the elderly. The social principles which captivated me the most were communism and anarchism Families are at the epicenter of both social principles. I understand that these two concepts are very conflicting because one system (communism) is completely structured, in the sense of having a government of authorities. And the other system (anarchism) everyone is capable of representing them self. I have realized that only one of the social principles fits with my personal principles. Communist would be most closely related to my personal principle because communism is essential about community, the welfare of others, and most importantly about an organized government. However, as with anarchism the foundation of my belief system which is based on influences of my parents and God, in the anarchist society there is not any religion which would help to guide morals. I think that I would be able to live according to the either communism principles or anarchist society. I could live according to communist society if I moved to a country that practices communism or accepts anarchism but here in the United States that would be virtually impossible seeing that it is a democratic-capitalist country. In a government that oppresses anything that challenges the system which works for the transnational corporations.

            The social principles that I would choose in order are anarchism, Communism, liberalism. The concept of liberalism is a bit farfetched because whether we like it or not the people in our environment affects our quality of life. If we had a liberalism society in the United States today the gap between the rich and poor would be far worst. In sum, the social principles that we adapt are very important because of the amount of people that it will impact.

Personal Principle

                                                     Personal Principles

A principle is a moral rule or belief that helps one know what is right and wrong. Therefore, personal principles are a vital component to human beings, principles behave as compasses guiding us through the journey of our lives. Personal principles are essential in teaching rules of being virtuous human being.  However, most of the “personal” principles that are held dearly are not personal in the slightest sense because they were taught to us by our parents and our society. Nonetheless, as we grow older we continue to adhere to said principles because firstly the principles are comfortable and secondly they are sociable acceptable. Upon receiving this assignment I had to think about my personal principles and how they were fostered, I had never realized how few of my personal principles were actually cultivated by me.

The principles for which I adhere to most ardently in life have been presented to me by my parents who believe in God and being well mannered.  I recall my parents specifically quoting the bible if I ever tried to express an opinion that was contrary to their ideals. They would say “Honor thy father and mother so your days may be long upon the earth” utilizing this quote seem to always be successful in ending the conversation. The environment I was raised in believed in being respectful, polite, and helpful to everyone but most importantly to the elderly. As long as I can remember I have been taught that I must be respectful to my elders or people in authority over me (such as teachers) regardless of whether or not the person was being respectful.  It was also taught that elders are wiser and therefore I should always obey them. Due to the environment I was brought up in I developed a bias to the elderly, I always feel the need to assist them whether or not they requested my help.  Before entering this class I completely believed that this was a very noble act however upon the first discussion we had in class I realized that by treating the elderly in this fashion meant that I didn't really respect them but more so pitied them.

In class we were exposed to various schools of thought, however the school of thought that I found most captivating was Taoism. The Taoist’s reference to the uncarved block is truly remarkable, the uncarved block can become so many things when it is not attach to worldly materials it makes them free to make decisions that are truly just and beneficial to mankind. A society that is emancipated of the the retrains of material and obtaining wealth is a society in which there is not a top one percent that obtain a great deal of wealth by stepping on the backs of hard working people and destroying the environment  in order to increase their profit margin.  I strongly believe that the introduction of modern Taoism in our society would be beneficial because before this class I have often thought about the society for which we currently live in and how corrupt it is, I wondered if this is the way I would like future generations to grow up and the answer is absolutely not.  The Taoist way of life is more likely to sustain our planet not only by sustaining the people but also the physical aspect (the earth) by the fact that they believe that everything should occur naturally.  The Taoists ability to be spontaneous and to partake in activities that make them truly happy is also very inspirational for the reason that if a person is participating in the things that make them happy they are not going to be stressed which resolves in better interpersonal relationships and physical health. The concept of water in the Taoist practice is one of great importance for the reason that in life one must be able to adapt to their environment and adapt to their circumstances while being determined in order to survive.

In sum, having personal principles are crucial in directing how we treat fellow human being. It is essential that we reevaluate our personal principles constantly to insure that we are in sync with “the truth” and “not our truths”.