The basic form of my argument is: Do virtually all readers really agree with Levin's conclusion regarding his analogy using Jones - that Jones' behaviour will inevitably cause harm and should not be legal?
I don't think so. My view, which I would imagine at least some others share, differs considerably from Levin's. Firstly, I think that as long as Jones' behaviour does not harm others, and does not cause him personally to die (or possibly even if it does) it should not be illegal. Secondly, I do not think that the behaviour will necessarily cause harm. If Jones is some variety of apotemnophiliac, or something similar, he might well find extensive psychological relief from pulling his teeth. Even if the experience causes him pain, and he suffers some impairment in eating ability as a result, the psychological benefits might well outweigh the negative physical effects.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Q&A 4, First Answer
The basic form of my question is: According to Levin's argument, wouldn't any sexual activity other than very
straightforward, possibly child-producing intercourse also be a misuse of body
parts?
Apparently. I am not sure if Levin actually holds this view, but it does seem to follow from his argument. It is possible that he believes this to some extent - some people, especially those who hold generally conservative views, disapprove of any type of creative sexual activity - but taking the argument to its logical limit seems too far. For example, if one did so, kissing (which is not always sexual, but is often) would be a misuse of one's mouth. I think that Levin is unlikely to support this view.
Furthermore, Levin also argues in favour of heterosexual, monogamous marriage - but there is some evidence to suggest that, particularly during prehistory, polygamy was actually more evolutionarily beneficial to the survival of the human race. If this is so, and monogamous marriage is a purely cultural phenomenon, then in order to be consistent Levin would have to modify his argument to reflect this, which is something I think he probably would not do.
Apparently. I am not sure if Levin actually holds this view, but it does seem to follow from his argument. It is possible that he believes this to some extent - some people, especially those who hold generally conservative views, disapprove of any type of creative sexual activity - but taking the argument to its logical limit seems too far. For example, if one did so, kissing (which is not always sexual, but is often) would be a misuse of one's mouth. I think that Levin is unlikely to support this view.
Furthermore, Levin also argues in favour of heterosexual, monogamous marriage - but there is some evidence to suggest that, particularly during prehistory, polygamy was actually more evolutionarily beneficial to the survival of the human race. If this is so, and monogamous marriage is a purely cultural phenomenon, then in order to be consistent Levin would have to modify his argument to reflect this, which is something I think he probably would not do.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Backwards Arguing
After reading Michael Levin's essay, I found myself thinking about the fact that his method of argumentation seemed somewhat flipped when compared to many of the other philosophers in this book. They mostly presented premises and evidence, and then considered only conclusions which did not contradict that evidence. They may have guessed at their conclusions at the start, but in general their arguments began with premises and ended with conclusions. Levin, on the other hand, appears to have started with an agenda and then refused to consider premises which might contradict it. This is somewhat annoying, because it results in an argument which is only coherent on the surface; because Levin did not take into account any evidence which suggested a conclusion different from the one he supported.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Response: Missing Out?
In response to Chris's post "Is 'Owning' a Pet Ethical?" (February 15, 2012):
While many clear-cut cases of pet mistreatment exist, I do not think there is a problem with the concept of merely owning a pet, so long as one treats the pet well. It may seem wrong to remove an animal from its natural environment, but consider: is the animal actually missing out on anything by becoming a pet? In many cases, no. There are some theories that the first domestic dogs were wild dogs which actually chose to spend time with and work alongside humans, because of the many benefits that this offered. In the wild, most animals have short, difficult lives, and in many cases domesticating them does not appear to deprive them of many enjoyable activities.
The point about birds and fish being able to survive in the wild is quite valid, and I think that many birds do indeed miss out on a great deal by being domesticated. However, I don't think that the problem is that they could survive in the wild and pet owners deprive them of that life; instead, I think the problem is that the pet owners do not provide substitutes for the activities they could engage in if they lived in wild environments. Fish have very limited cognitive abilities - while it is true that many humans would go mad if confined to a small glass bowl, that is because humans require a great deal of stimulation. Fish typically do not. The average fish requires no more stimulation than a sparsely decorated bowl can provide. Birds are much more intelligent, and those birds which have their wings clipped, are ignored and neglected, or are confined to small cages at all times are, I think, being mistreated; however, birds which can fly around their owners' houses, get frequent attention, and only live in a cage at night (when they would sleep in the wild anyway) are living lives which are at least as nice as most of them would have in the wild. Basically, deciding to own a pet means assuming a responsibility to that animal to give it a life at least as nice as what it would live if it were undomesticated.
While many clear-cut cases of pet mistreatment exist, I do not think there is a problem with the concept of merely owning a pet, so long as one treats the pet well. It may seem wrong to remove an animal from its natural environment, but consider: is the animal actually missing out on anything by becoming a pet? In many cases, no. There are some theories that the first domestic dogs were wild dogs which actually chose to spend time with and work alongside humans, because of the many benefits that this offered. In the wild, most animals have short, difficult lives, and in many cases domesticating them does not appear to deprive them of many enjoyable activities.
The point about birds and fish being able to survive in the wild is quite valid, and I think that many birds do indeed miss out on a great deal by being domesticated. However, I don't think that the problem is that they could survive in the wild and pet owners deprive them of that life; instead, I think the problem is that the pet owners do not provide substitutes for the activities they could engage in if they lived in wild environments. Fish have very limited cognitive abilities - while it is true that many humans would go mad if confined to a small glass bowl, that is because humans require a great deal of stimulation. Fish typically do not. The average fish requires no more stimulation than a sparsely decorated bowl can provide. Birds are much more intelligent, and those birds which have their wings clipped, are ignored and neglected, or are confined to small cages at all times are, I think, being mistreated; however, birds which can fly around their owners' houses, get frequent attention, and only live in a cage at night (when they would sleep in the wild anyway) are living lives which are at least as nice as most of them would have in the wild. Basically, deciding to own a pet means assuming a responsibility to that animal to give it a life at least as nice as what it would live if it were undomesticated.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)