duty

I got beat to the "old yeller" defense so I'm at a bit of a loss....but consider: from the infamous cat-ladies, to whale people (as mentioned by Colin), to Steve Irwin, to all the kids in disney movies with their golden retrievers - human camaraderie with and duty to animals on, or very near, an intrahuman level is not that unheard of; there's a bunch of people that like their animals way more than people. This would suggest self duty is completely self centered (me valuing anything/anyone only because of the way they make me feel) or external duties stretch as far as partial emotional identification will allow (I don't like the feeling of pain, I have a duty to prevent the same feeling from existing in something else; tree-mourning hippies from the video being on the further end).

Turtle, Turtle!

So following Colin M.'s post, there are many people that are dedicated to animals and are continuously working towards making the animals' lives better. They don't just recycle or cut the loops on the plastic coke holders. An example would be like the Sea Turtle Conservancy, which is a large non-profit. Also, many people volunteer (and pay) to go and help sea turtles. These ecovolunteers don't have to pay money to tag sea turtles in Costa Rica, they could very well choose to just sit on a beach and drink margaritas.

My example = All the time!

The difference between a moral duty to oneself and a moral duty to an animal always makes a difference when it comes to practical application. We all breach duties on a regular basis, those to ourselves as well as to others. When it comes to evaluating our actions and intentions, the source of our duties has a huge influence. For example, if I intend to kill a goat with a claw hammer for sheer amusement, I probably won't care all that much about having a moral duty to myself not to do so. But if I recognize that I have a moral duty to the goat itself, I imagine that that would affect my actions considerably, probably resulting in my refraining from killing that goat. By evaluating the pleasure and pain caused by the act, both those of myself and the goat (thoroughly turning this analysis from deontological to utilitarian in the process) it seems clear that the better course of action would be sparing the goat's life.

Moral considerablility is not exclusive to moral agents

I am 100% behind the idea that other animals do not have moral responsibilities to us or to each other, yet I dont believe that this ability to be held responsible is the only determining factor in moral considerability. As I said Monday, moral judgements are making a claim of what is 'good' or 'bad' and I think that Nature definitely should be considered morally! If we eradicate a species from the planet, to me this is a bad thing! A morally wrong thing! Especially if it is not in direct relation to the protection of our own species (which I acknowledge must be our first concern, as we are indeed members of our own species). Thus I think that in the case of extinction, (as we are the only creatures known to cause this) we should be held morally responsible toward nature.

Tastier when treated better

This post is not to say that we should focus on feeding chickens and cattle healthy diets so that they end up tasting good to us when we eat. However, it is true that the meat from these animals tastes better and has better nutritional quality when their diets consist of fresh grass and insects, rather than corn-feed pumped with nasty chemicals that cause harm to the animals whose digestive tracts can't handle it anyway. Cows and chickens that are kept in solitude, being fed this unhealthy diet of corn are suffering. AND their meat is less healthy. If humans create a healthy lifestyle for animals we intend to eat, they will be more nutritional for us, and there is little suffering.

My point is, we both benefit.

Sacrificing one for the other.

I was trying to think of an example to post, and was honestly having a very hard time. However, I did find one interesting observation. Where can we say the duty lies when we feed our pets (such as a snake) live animals? You may be able to argue feeding your pet snake keeps it alive which it turn makes you, the human, happy, thus reflects another indirect duty. However, does this not create some hierarchy among animals; giving your pet snake more value than the mouse you are feeding it? I think this then means that we show direct duty to the snake in which we recognize our duty to sacrifice the mouse for the snake, because the snake is inherently more intelligent or valuable. This could be a stretch to view this scenario as a direct duty towards animals, but regardless I still think the way humans place animals in hierarchies and our reasoning behind this is an interesting debate.

Whale Wars

So before I even get to the gist of my example, I realize it's farfetched now but will explain as I go.

I think that the group of people responsible for the original idea behind what ultimately ended up being documented and made into a TV show--the Discovery show Whale Wars--served a sense of duty to the environment and nature. I understand that once it became a hit TV series, the Sea Shepard crew began to fulfill a duty to the environment as a self-duty to promote ratings, gain fame, gain popularity and support...but the original concept where people put their very lives at stake for the betterment of animals in which they received nothing from--that is selfless. While people could argue that they received 'good feelings' or positive responses from others, I propose that the sheer misery that must be involved with such a 'job' would outweigh any benefits received. Ultimately, i think they were serving a moral duty to nature, the environment and 'the other'.