Up@dawn 2.0

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Section 13 Group 2 9/17 discussion

Today, we discussed our views on euthanasia. First, we agreed that if the decision would be made about our own demise, that it would be a heck of a lot easier than making the decision for someone else, especially a child. We discussed that society accepts euthanization of animals much more than the seriousness of "assisted suicide" of humans.


  1. FQ: What is a form of prejudiced discrimination and on non-relevant grounds and is something to be avoided and condemned as vigorously as racism is?

    DQ: Do you feel that animals should have rights like humans? Even though, animals cannot fulfill their duties and voice opinions? If so, do you feel the infants and toddlers that cannot communicate vocally should also have rights?

    “The day may come when the rest of animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognized that the number of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?”
    ― Jeremy Bentham, The Principles of Morals and Legislation


  2. FQ: Who coined the term "speciesism"?

    DQ: As I read, I thought about the "food chain" and where we are, and so I researched. Some sources such as: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/12/08/249227181/between-pigs-and-anchovies-where-humans-rank-on-the-food-chain , and http://education.nationalgeographic.com/education/encyclopedia/food-chain/?ar_a=1 are the more reliable sources. One of them mentions we are between anchovies and pigs. My question to you is: why do you think we aren't at the top, and what could we do to move higher up? Eat the predators? This came to mind while reading the Christian viewpoint on how God gave humans dominion over the animals, and if that is the case, then how did we wind up "between pigs and anchovies"?

    [Relevant] Link: http://rcacharya.wordpress.com/2013/06/26/animal-rights/
    The picture of the hand holding the kit reminds me of Immanuel Kant's view of animal cruelty and how it shows our character.

  3. FQ: What is the woman's name in Boethius's cell?

    DQ: Do we agree that animals cannot feel pain? Why or why not?

    Link: Tribute to the great Boethius

  4. FQ: Who wrote The Consolation of Philosophy?

    DQ: Do you believe that animal suffering is different than human suffering? Why of Why not?


  5. Jim Bratton9:27 AM CDT

    Section 13, Group 3
    FQs and DQs for next class:

    1. (T/F) Boethius was one of the first Roman philosophers
    2. Which Greek letters is the woman from Boethius's book associated with?
    1. Where do you believe you can find a sense of "true happiness"?
    2. Do you believe that true happiness can only come from inside?

    1. What does "speciesism" imply?
    2. What is anti-speciesism based on?
    1. Do you think that animals have interests in continued existence and a good level of welfare?
    2. Do you believe that animals have moral rights?

  6. FQ: T/F Jeremy Bentham argued that the suffering of animals should be included in any moral assessment of how we should behave.
    DQ; In the book "The Consolation of Philosophy," Boethius says that riches, power, and honor are worthless because they are not permanent. Do you agree? Why?
    LINK: The Consolation of Philosophy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIoubRSEM3Y