Prompt 13

I believe that both my third post and 7^th post have a lot in relation to each other. My third post was a commentary on a future group member's reaction on whether the consumption of animals was wrong. I evaluated her consequential position on the subject, and her thoughts on animals value. She suggests that animals have more of an instrumental value to humans, though she doesn't completely ignore their inherent worth. Her upbringing amongst both vegetarian's and meat eaters contributed to a balanced argument about the subject. Although we both reached relatively similar conclusions – that buying certified organic removes the moral consequence from consuming meat products – we came about it from two different perspectives. My original post took a more deontological approach, while hers was more consequential; both anthropocentric however.

The 7^th post we wrote was in regards to an article by Sagoff and the role of the consumer in environmental ethics. This made me realize that I had not considered all of the aspects to ecological arguments. Much of my prior work had been in regards to food, but I had failed to realize how big of an economic sector I had to take into account. There are many people who simply cannot afford to buy food that comes from a sustainable source, even though they would like to. Much of what has been organized today, factory farms and the like, are simply to support the lesser-off of our population. People are also enticed by cheap meat, because the consumer model in America stresses buying many things. The less the average person has to spend on food, the more they can spend on luxury goods. Although in the end I disagreed with Sagoff, mentioning that he put too much emphasis on the downfalls of capitalism, there were aspects of his conclusion that caught my attention. I argues that there are many other societal systems that share in the same exploitation, but agreed with his idea that it is very hard to bring about change through these government groups. His writing was the first to bring into my thought process the idea that change must come through education of the population.

My third post gives a good example of what my ideas were early on in the class, while the 7^th shows a reaction that eventually leads to the stirrings of a more ecological ethicist position. In the beginning, I was more concerned with balancing the population and keeping animals as far out of harm as possible. However, after reading Sagoff's article, and his convincing argument that maybe factory farms were needed to sustain our current population, my thoughts began to be swayed. I became more willing to give up animal rights in order to better the health of Americans and sustain our population as a whole. I believe that capitalism and consumerism are a necessary part of the American economy that can't be given up for the rights of animals, but still has flaws in its implementation. We cannot always just consider numbers of population and individual people. Sagoff teaches us to think of society as a whole and consider how it's structured. Although his ideas to a solution are vague, they do make sense conceptually. An increase in education of the general population about current ecological problems are the most efficient way to bring about change within the system. By disseminating this information, we may eventually be able to effectively balance maintaining the population, meeting human dietary needs, and keeping the capitalist consumer model of America alive.

http://thomasmphil149.blogspot.com/2012/01/prompt-3.html

http://thomasmphil149.blogspot.com/2012/01/prompt-7.html