Am I Being Indoctrinated?

[KevinDW78]

The anwer is probably "yes" In my college ethics course, we have finally gotten into the part of the course where we address specific issues (homosexuality, animal cruelty, etc) As I start doin the readings for animal cruelty, consider our assigned reading,

http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~norcross/Puppies.pdf

This is a pro-vegetarian, anti-animal article playing games of argument like:

So, what gives puppies a higher moral status than the animals we eat? Presumably there is some morally relevant property possessed by puppies but not by farm animals. Perhaps puppies have a greater degree of rationality than farm animals, or a more finely developed moral sense, or at least a sense of loyalty and devotion. The problems with this kind of approach are obvious. It's highly unlikely that any property that has even an outside chance of being ethically relevant is both possessed by puppies and not possessed by any farm animals.

and

If we base our claims for the moral superiority of humans over animal on the attribution of such capabilities, won't we have to exclude many humans? Won't we then be forced to the claim that there is at least as much moreal reason to use cognitively eficient humans in experiments and for food as to use animals?

and my favorite gem of a conclusion:

I take it that the biological distinction between male and female is just as real as that between human and chimpanzee.

Now if we were reading this, then discussing it, I could unerstand it. But the problem is, this is an online course, there is no work, no assignment, no writnig, no consideration, no discussion of this and no readings of a contrary viewpoint - we're just supposed to read it. (I have already looked at the other readings we're assigned and they are pretty much all similiar. In addition to readin this, we are supposed to watch about a dozen video clips of various animals being tortured (slaughter houses, fur breeers, etc). Because of the fact that we are just supposed to read and watch these things without further discussion or contemplation, all I can conclude is that the professor is simply indoctrinating us with personal, liberal adgendas.

I am curious to hear other people's opinions on this article in particular and if you feel it is even relevant in an ethics class when no discussion follows it.

Edited July 13, 2008 by KevinDW78

[Myself]

Why did you take the course? You should have looked at the syllabus before the add/drop period ended.

[KevinDW78]

It fulfills a gen ed requirement. And I needed online courses to take during the summer session so my choices were limited. Also since it is an online course, all the sullabus told me was that week 8 would be "anumal cruelty" and that's the extent of it. What the actual readings were going to be (and the videos I mentioned) are not available until the week in question.

But I thank you for your helpful feedback. [sarcasm] Take your snide, arrogant attitude elsewhere please.

Edited July 13, 2008 by KevinDW78

[Mammon]

Why did you take the course? You should have looked at the syllabus before the add/drop period ended.

Well, if you actually went to college you might have had the opportunity to pick up on the fact that a syllabus for a class doesn't really tell you anything about the class other then who is teaching it, and what subjects will be discussed, some don't even have that.

You don't know the class sucks until it's too late, you've already wasted time and money.

[Nyronus]

So, what gives puppies a higher moral status than the animals we eat? Presumably there is some morally relevant property possessed by puppies but not by farm animals. Perhaps puppies have a greater degree of rationality than farm animals, or a more finely developed moral sense, or at least a sense of loyalty and devotion. The problems with this kind of approach are obvious. It's highly unlikely that any property that has even an outside chance of being ethically relevant is both possessed by puppies and not possessed by any farm animals.

I agree. There is no reason puppies are superior to farm animals as far as food is concerned. Which is why I would not be adverse to eating the little buggers if it came down to it. We like puppies better because they are cute, loyal, and fun. A pig will lead a socialist uprising against you. Hence why we eat them and not puppies.

If we base our claims for the moral superiority of humans over animal on the attribution of such capabilities, won't we have to exclude many humans? Won't we then be forced to the claim that there is at least as much moral reason to use cognitively efficient humans in experiments and for food as to use animals?

Which is also why I would advocate medical testing on life-term prisoners. I honestly don't trust that dog-kidneys will function like mine will. I want to see some human kidney usage before I put any pill in my mouth. What's good for Hitler is good enough for me.

I take it that the biological distinction between male and female is just as real as that between human and chimpanzee.

Actually, its a less than one percent difference that is, for the most part, hormonal. As opposed to the three percent difference between a man and a chimp (two and a half if you write articles like this). I really have nothing funny to say about this one.

----

Yeah.

This is the same course with your jolly good friend who we dealt with previously, huh? While animal abuse is something of a contemporary ethical (non)-issue, if all they show you is this crap... Yeah, not a great course. I would hardly call it indoctrination. They have yet to sit you down and begin the brain-washing drug-infused torture session yet.

Oh well, three credits are three credits.

[eriatarka]

A college course without discusscion or reading sounds like a waste of time.

But having said that, I dont really see anything wrong with the quoted paragraphs. There is no reason we treat dogs/cats better than other animals except social convention. And theres probably no rational justiification for granting rights to people who are permanent lacking in higher level cognitive functions. And the part about biological differences is true even if its a non sequitur.

I dont really think theyre arguments for vegetarianism though - none of them justify giving animals rights, they just point out a common hypocrisy. Peter Singer has been trolling using the 'if we eat animals why not eat the mentally handicapped too?' stuff for years and the moral outrage he generates can be pretty fun.

Edited July 14, 2008 by eriatarka

[KevinDW78]

This is the same course with your jolly good friend who we dealt with previously, huh?

Actually this is a different course lol. That other one with the Bible-thumper is Survey of Philosophy. This is Ethical Dillemas.

But having said that, I dont really see anything wrong with the quoted paragraphs.

At face value, probably not. But within the context and attitude of the rest of the piece, saying things like this just leaves that gross feeling in the pit of my stomach.

Edited July 14, 2008 by KevinDW78

[Myself]

Well, if you actually went to college you might have had the opportunity to pick up on the fact that a syllabus for a class doesn't really tell you anything about the class other then who is teaching it, and what subjects will be discussed, some don't even have that.

You don't know the class sucks until it's too late, you've already wasted time and money.

I don't know what crappy college you went to, but every syllabus I recieved for every one of my classes had a list of books and readings for the entire course. If for some reason the syllabus didn't have that information, all it would take to find out is a simple e-mail to the professor of the class.

Don't condescend to me.

As for the original post - it's useless. Why go on to the forum and complain that you're being indoctrinated in a class you chose to take? What sort of response does the OP expect? Sympathy? Commiseration? It's his own fault for not investigating the class more thoroughly.

[KevinDW78]

I don't know what crappy college you went to, but every syllabus I recieved for every one of my classes had a list of books and readings for the entire course. If for some reason the syllabus didn't have that information, all it would take to find out is a simple e-mail to the professor of the class.

Yes the syllabus listed books, but everything in this post being discussed was not IN the books. It was distributed to us THE WEEK OF THE READING. Yes, i could have emailed the professor for all the readings for the semester - are you suggesting I read an entire semesters worth of material the first week of school to see if I agree with the content? Don't be ludicrous. Now you're just trying to justify your original bratty attitude.

The point of this post was to share my experiences taking college philosophy courses. Something I have been doing all along and have been ENCOURAGED by the other members of this forum to do so because they found it interesting and entertaining and enjoy taking on the arguments presented. Clearly you need to reread my OP when I clearly indicate my expectations:

I am curious to hear other people's opinions on this article in particular and if you feel it is even relevant in an ethics class when no discussion follows it.

Edited July 14, 2008 by KevinDW78

[D'kian]

The anwer is probably "yes" In my college ethics course, we have finally gotten into the part of the course where we address specific issues (homosexuality, animal cruelty, etc) As I start doin the readings for animal cruelty, consider our assigned reading,

So, what gives puppies a higher moral status than the animals we eat? Presumably there is some morally relevant property possessed by puppies but not by farm animals. Perhaps puppies have a greater degree of rationality than farm animals, or a more finely developed moral sense, or at least a sense of loyalty and devotion. The problems with this kind of approach are obvious. It's highly unlikely that any property that has even an outside chance of being ethically relevant is both possessed by puppies and not possessed by any farm animals.

I see two errors here: 1) morality does not apply to animals, they are amoral; 2) there's no specific property possesed by dogs that farm animals lack.

It's a matter of values. Dogs are valued as pets because they ar of a size, disposition and ability to be pets, same thing with cats. By this I mean a dog or cat (or two or three) don't take up inordinate amounts of room inside a house, they are sociable creatures one can safely interact with, and they are capable of learning to behave inside a house. Horses, for example, are also sociable and loyal, very much like dogs in many ways. But try to imagine keeping a horse inside the house, not to mention cleaning up after him.

In addition dogs perfrom many valuable functions. As pets and companions their value is self-evident, but they can also be trained for search and rescue, law enforcement, guides for the blind, etc. In fact you can train a dog to sniff out anything at all, as long as you know what you want him to sniff. So they're useful, say, in arson investigations sniffing out accelerants.

And that's why we eat cows and pigs but not dogs and cats.

[KevinDW78]

And that's why we eat cows and pigs but not dogs and cats.

lol Great conclusion.

[KevinDW78]

To continue... I just did the reading for poverty as an ethical dillema. I won't include the article here because it's not at a public url I can post, but here are the 10 premises of the essay which the author was kind enough to clearly itemize. (the other 30 some odd pages are just Kantian tripe)

Those at the bottom are very badly off in absolute terms.

They are also very badly off in relative terms - very much worse off than many others.

The inequality is persistent: It i difficult or impossible for those at the bottom substantially to improve their lot; an most of those at the top never experience life at the bottom for even a few month and have no vivid ideas of what it is like to live in that way.

The inequality is pervasive: It concerns not merely some aspects of life, such as the climate or access to natural beauty or high culture, but most apects or all.

The inequality is avoidable: Those at the top can improve the circumstances of those at the bottom without becoing baly off themselves.

Everyday conduct of those at the top often strongly affects the circumstances of those at the bottom in a way that shows that both coexist under a single scheme of social institutions.

This institutional scheme is implicated in the radical inequality by avoidably producing the poverty of thoe at the bottom, in thi sense: It is not the case that every practicable institutional alternative would also generate such severe and extensive poverty.

The radical inequality cannot be traced to extrasocial factors (such as genetic handicap or natural disasters) that, as such, affects different human beings differently.

Those at the top enjoy significant avantages in the use of a single natural resource base from whose benefits those at the bottom are largely, and without compensation, excluded.

The social starting position of those at the bottom an those at the top have emerge from a single historical process that wa pervaded by massive grevious wrongs.

Gee I'm not sure that a single one of those is a sound premise!

Edited July 15, 2008 by KevinDW78

[DragonMaci]

It i difficult or impossible for those at the bottom substantially to improve their lot

This not true; many can and do.

Those at the top can improve the circumstances of those at the bottom without becoing baly off themselves.

They do do so through their productive effort.

Those at the top enjoy significant avantages in the use of a single natural resource base from whose benefits those at the bottom are largely, and without compensation, excluded.

Of course. Those at the top earn more than those at the bottom. Natural resources are tapped through productive effort by those at the top, so it is those at the top that deserve compensation not those at the bottom. No man has the right to the fruits of another man's labour except by trade; there is no automatic right.

[softwareNerd]

Re: The subject of this post.... what does "indoctrination" mean?

[KevinDW78]

Re: The subject of this post.... what does "indoctrination" mean?

Noun

S: (n) indoctrination (teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically)

Like I said - I realize it was basically a rehtocial question, because I think it is pretty self evident that the answer is yes.

Edited July 15, 2008 by KevinDW78

[fletch]

Now you're just trying to justify your original bratty attitude.

Not that Myself needs me to defend him, but I saw nothing "bratty" in his original post, nor his second post for that matter. That is not to say that there have not been bratty/snotty posts on this thread. It is just that he is not the guilty party.