Sarah asked: "What do you think the feminist movement sprung from? Could it have been envy or jealous, or something else?"
This question is much more complex than it may seem, and requires a complex answer to do it justice.
As a political movement, feminism traces its roots back to the late 19th century. In the changing, industrializing world, there was less of a need for women to be dedicated solely to the raising of their children. Industrialization, coupled with the development of the public school system, meant that women had less duties at home. They were no longer required to produce everything the household needed and educate the children. As a result, women began to receive an education, and with that growing education came an awareness of their status as second-class citizens.
The original feminist movement, the suffragette movement of the late 19th and early 20th century, was, I believe, based not so much on envy or jealousy, but on righteous outrage in the face of a clear injustice. As barriers fell, and women proved themselves to be just as intelligent and capable of men, given the opportunity to do so, it came as a natural consequence that they would be given the right to vote.
The 1960's saw a resurgence of the feminist movement. African Americans stood up to the continued injustices inflicted upon them 100 years after their supposed freeing of slavery, and women joined their ranks to press for the removal of institutional biases against them. Again, this is not envy, but a reaction to oppression of a historically underprivileged group of people by the (predominantly white male) group that was in power.
And so we come to the feminism today. It is, I think, hard to truly define what "feminism" means, as it has blossomed into a very wide-ranging movement, fighting, among other things, against workplace discrimination against women, sexual assault and harassment of women, discrimination against minorities (and minority women in particular), discrimination against homosexuals, etc. The key here is that it the fight has its same roots -- to win for an underprivileged group of people the right of equal access to resources (government involvement, education, etc) so that these groups are given equal opportunity to succeed.
To end with a question: In what ways might questions of civil rights be questions of envy or jealousy, and are these legitimate positions to put forward?
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Government and Egalitarianism
Joel asked: "can government exist in an egalitarian society?"
Government can absolutely exist in an egalitarian society, though it would likely be quite different from the current government we have. It would be, I suspect, much closer to a true democracy.
How would such a government work? It may well be rather like the minimalist government that the libertarians seem so fond of envisioning. In an ideal egalitarian society (and please bear with me, as an ideal can form a starting point and give us direction to real world applications), the people governed would gather whenever the situation required, and debate until a consensus was formed about how to best address a particular issue. Compromise has, of course, never been a particular strong suit of humanity, but it is necessary for our species to learn such if we ever want to have a truly egalitarian society.
In this theoretical egalitarian society, "government" involvement would be minimal. There would be little need for a government outside of maintaining fair relationships between communities, and perhaps some minimal amount of law enforcement for grievous offenses. Beyond this, the community would be more or less self-sufficient, producing what it can, trading for what it needs but cannot produce, itself. Such would necessitate a move toward communal thinking versus individualism, a shift from our Western mindset towards a more "primitive" way of thinking that puts value on the survival of the community as a whole over any particular individual. This does not negate the value of the individual. It simply relegates the individual to one part of an interconnected whole, performing a valuable service for the community in return for the mutual support of the community.
Given this theoretical model, what aspects of it may be applicable to the "real world," and how might we go about instituting them?
Government can absolutely exist in an egalitarian society, though it would likely be quite different from the current government we have. It would be, I suspect, much closer to a true democracy.
How would such a government work? It may well be rather like the minimalist government that the libertarians seem so fond of envisioning. In an ideal egalitarian society (and please bear with me, as an ideal can form a starting point and give us direction to real world applications), the people governed would gather whenever the situation required, and debate until a consensus was formed about how to best address a particular issue. Compromise has, of course, never been a particular strong suit of humanity, but it is necessary for our species to learn such if we ever want to have a truly egalitarian society.
In this theoretical egalitarian society, "government" involvement would be minimal. There would be little need for a government outside of maintaining fair relationships between communities, and perhaps some minimal amount of law enforcement for grievous offenses. Beyond this, the community would be more or less self-sufficient, producing what it can, trading for what it needs but cannot produce, itself. Such would necessitate a move toward communal thinking versus individualism, a shift from our Western mindset towards a more "primitive" way of thinking that puts value on the survival of the community as a whole over any particular individual. This does not negate the value of the individual. It simply relegates the individual to one part of an interconnected whole, performing a valuable service for the community in return for the mutual support of the community.
Given this theoretical model, what aspects of it may be applicable to the "real world," and how might we go about instituting them?
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Some Light Reading
As promised, here are the links I mentioned in class. First, a possible moral argument for providing meat to children: http://www.healthylivingnyc.com/article/117
Second, a link exploring the pros and cons of meat in terms of health: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/is-meat-good-or-bad-for-us-425192.html
Finally, an article on the evolution of our diet: http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/conferences/wburg/posters/sboydeaton/eaton.htm (I'm not sure how relevant this might be, but it is an interesting read, to be sure, once you've spent a bit of time translating the scientific terms.)
Second, a link exploring the pros and cons of meat in terms of health: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/is-meat-good-or-bad-for-us-425192.html
Finally, an article on the evolution of our diet: http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/conferences/wburg/posters/sboydeaton/eaton.htm (I'm not sure how relevant this might be, but it is an interesting read, to be sure, once you've spent a bit of time translating the scientific terms.)
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
On Oppression (of Animals)
Emily asked: "Why do so many people only care about the issues of one oppressed group, instead of all of them?"
There is a simple answer to this question. To put it bluntly: if you try to do everything, you will accomplish nothing. It is far more efficient to work on one thing at a time, rather than to work at everything all at once. Hence, we have separate groups (and separate battles) to combat racism, sexism, classism, etc. I do have to question, however, whether "speciesism" is a legitimate form of oppression that needs to be addressed.
Humans certainly have a preference for their (our) own species. This is, I think, morally justifiable. We, unlike every other species, have developed highly complex languages, social structures, tools, systems of knowledge, etc, etc, etc. We have tamed the earth, fought the elements, and against all odds, we have come to dominate the earth. We alone are rational beings, we alone are moral beings, we alone rule this planet. And we have not been entirely unjust to other species. Cats, dogs, and horses have gotten a pretty nice deal -- medical care, food, comfortable shelter, companionship, all at the price of merely providing some entertainment and companionship to their human masters. How evil is that?
Have we made mistakes? Naturally. We are only human. We are not gods (though we come closer to this status every day). But, we can improve. Just because we have done cruel things to the animals we eat does not mean we must therefore swear off meat entirely. We can change our systems, put tight regulations on the meat industry, and boycott the industry if they refuse to acquiesce. But should we fundamentally change our relationship with animals as masters? I think not.
To end with a question: Considering the relative fluidity of moral values, what is the purpose of trying to argue against meat from a moral perspective?
There is a simple answer to this question. To put it bluntly: if you try to do everything, you will accomplish nothing. It is far more efficient to work on one thing at a time, rather than to work at everything all at once. Hence, we have separate groups (and separate battles) to combat racism, sexism, classism, etc. I do have to question, however, whether "speciesism" is a legitimate form of oppression that needs to be addressed.
Humans certainly have a preference for their (our) own species. This is, I think, morally justifiable. We, unlike every other species, have developed highly complex languages, social structures, tools, systems of knowledge, etc, etc, etc. We have tamed the earth, fought the elements, and against all odds, we have come to dominate the earth. We alone are rational beings, we alone are moral beings, we alone rule this planet. And we have not been entirely unjust to other species. Cats, dogs, and horses have gotten a pretty nice deal -- medical care, food, comfortable shelter, companionship, all at the price of merely providing some entertainment and companionship to their human masters. How evil is that?
Have we made mistakes? Naturally. We are only human. We are not gods (though we come closer to this status every day). But, we can improve. Just because we have done cruel things to the animals we eat does not mean we must therefore swear off meat entirely. We can change our systems, put tight regulations on the meat industry, and boycott the industry if they refuse to acquiesce. But should we fundamentally change our relationship with animals as masters? I think not.
To end with a question: Considering the relative fluidity of moral values, what is the purpose of trying to argue against meat from a moral perspective?
Monday, March 8, 2010
The Executive Coup Against the Constitution
http://www.grittv.org/2010/03/05/the-most-dangerous-man-in-america/
This video lays out a wonderful explanation of what essentially is the situation we find ourselves in now -- an executive branch given virtually-monarchical powers to run and expand the American Empire, rubber-stamped by a complacent and corrupt congress, and supported by the courts.
To end with a question: What are your thoughts on the policies of the last eight years? Was it an executive coup against the constitution, as Mr. Ellsberg suggests, or perhaps something else?
This video lays out a wonderful explanation of what essentially is the situation we find ourselves in now -- an executive branch given virtually-monarchical powers to run and expand the American Empire, rubber-stamped by a complacent and corrupt congress, and supported by the courts.
To end with a question: What are your thoughts on the policies of the last eight years? Was it an executive coup against the constitution, as Mr. Ellsberg suggests, or perhaps something else?
Sunday, March 7, 2010
The Meaning of Life (For Animals)
Becky asked, "what is the meaning of live for animals?"
I think this is the wrong question to ask. It's a very anthropocentric question, tied in to our species' fetish for having meaning and purpose. If something has no meaning or purpose, then it is useless. The question of the meaning of life may have some bearing on humans, who have the ability to understand and contemplate such things, but it is inappropriate to ask of animals.
Take, for example, cows. They eat grass. All day. (How this is a sad truth is beyond me.) What is the meaning of their lives? Simply, to exist. Do animals really need a meaning beyond that? Is an animal's life unfulfilled if it does not live up to some sort of "meaning?" I do not think so. Survival and perpetuation of the species. That is the purpose of an animal. But to try to apply some romanticized, human notion of a meaning of life is absurd.
Perhaps cows are not the best example, then. Let us look at wolves. Wolves have a sort of basic society. The pack is led by the alphas, who get first pick of the food, and prioritized breeding. The rest of the pack is subordinate to the alphas, who attain their position by means of their being the biggest, strongest animals in the pack. In a way, they are not all that unlike primitive human society. So what is the meaning of life for these animals? The same as the cows above -- to exist, to survive and perpetuate their species. They certainly have more complex mechanisms to do so than cows, but that does not change their basic nature.
To end with an (unrelated) question: Is "meaning" a necessity for life?
I think this is the wrong question to ask. It's a very anthropocentric question, tied in to our species' fetish for having meaning and purpose. If something has no meaning or purpose, then it is useless. The question of the meaning of life may have some bearing on humans, who have the ability to understand and contemplate such things, but it is inappropriate to ask of animals.
Take, for example, cows. They eat grass. All day. (How this is a sad truth is beyond me.) What is the meaning of their lives? Simply, to exist. Do animals really need a meaning beyond that? Is an animal's life unfulfilled if it does not live up to some sort of "meaning?" I do not think so. Survival and perpetuation of the species. That is the purpose of an animal. But to try to apply some romanticized, human notion of a meaning of life is absurd.
Perhaps cows are not the best example, then. Let us look at wolves. Wolves have a sort of basic society. The pack is led by the alphas, who get first pick of the food, and prioritized breeding. The rest of the pack is subordinate to the alphas, who attain their position by means of their being the biggest, strongest animals in the pack. In a way, they are not all that unlike primitive human society. So what is the meaning of life for these animals? The same as the cows above -- to exist, to survive and perpetuate their species. They certainly have more complex mechanisms to do so than cows, but that does not change their basic nature.
To end with an (unrelated) question: Is "meaning" a necessity for life?
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Animals as Pets (and Food)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/dining/03rabbit.html
I stumbled across this article on the New York Times this evening. Since we are currently discussing the morality of eating meat, I thought this was highly appropriate (and the timing couldn't be better).
The article, in brief, touches on the history of using rabbits as a source of food. While they are generally considered a food source of last resort (except among the French), there has apparently been a recent surge in interest in the animals as food, particularly among those who may not have the room to raise other livestock animals, such as those living in the suburbs.
It does touch on an interesting bit of history. As stated in the article: "Ever since the Victorians began keeping them as pets, the relationship between the rabbit and the table has been uneasy."
It is interesting to consider the view of animals as pets that makes viewing them as food uneasy. To throw in another example (unrelated to the above article), in some Asian cultures (China most famously), dogs are cooked and eaten, a practice that many (primarily Westerners) view as cruel and inhumane.
So I pose to all of you a question: Why is it that, once we consider an animal a pet (a creature whose sole purpose is enslavement by our species for, primarily, our own amusement), that we become uneasy at the thought of using that animal as a source of food?
I stumbled across this article on the New York Times this evening. Since we are currently discussing the morality of eating meat, I thought this was highly appropriate (and the timing couldn't be better).
The article, in brief, touches on the history of using rabbits as a source of food. While they are generally considered a food source of last resort (except among the French), there has apparently been a recent surge in interest in the animals as food, particularly among those who may not have the room to raise other livestock animals, such as those living in the suburbs.
It does touch on an interesting bit of history. As stated in the article: "Ever since the Victorians began keeping them as pets, the relationship between the rabbit and the table has been uneasy."
It is interesting to consider the view of animals as pets that makes viewing them as food uneasy. To throw in another example (unrelated to the above article), in some Asian cultures (China most famously), dogs are cooked and eaten, a practice that many (primarily Westerners) view as cruel and inhumane.
So I pose to all of you a question: Why is it that, once we consider an animal a pet (a creature whose sole purpose is enslavement by our species for, primarily, our own amusement), that we become uneasy at the thought of using that animal as a source of food?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)