This Is Wild

Consider a collective "consciousness" that is pure mental energy, within which is absolute knowledge. This consciousness permeates all the universe (and therefore, unites it on a mental level), as it is the blueprint (think Plato's Forms). With the ability to rationalize and intuit, humans alone have the ability to tap into this consciousness so as to use it (through willful reason/intuition) and know the universe to a degree that no other species can, as others only carry out the nature of their blueprint. We are the medium through which this pure consciousness knows itself. Other species owe their existence to this consciousness, but only humans can move within it, knowingly, and manipulate nature and even change their value to the universe through it. This is not to say other species have no importance. They have essential importance, as humans rely on other organisms for their very existence as human; and it is humans, who alone recognize this, who are obligated to care for and respect the interconnectedness of the universe. And it is humans, who understand the effects and flatout wrongness of deliberatly causing (and experiencing) pain and suffering to anything, that must take this into account every time one encounters another organism. Just because humans alone can change their position in the universe on a mental level through the collective consciousness, doesn't change the life of other organisms who are susceptible to physical pain and are vital in the existence of this physical universe.
And the existence of a collective consciousness does not imply that any organism can make a rational connection (trees understanding their surroundings) with another, even if the forms find their origin in the same mental level.
If one is to view the world from an organisms perspective, as Taylor suggests is the criterion for having a teleological center, can this only be done through a collective consciousness (by a human)? We cannot know whether something is good or bad for an organism itself, as an organism, which does not have cognitive faculties, may be indifferent to everything. An organism would need to be subject not object for humans to know its true Form and what is good or bad for it, if anything. And this may be only be possible through a collective consciousness, as I described briefly above.
This may seem wild (impossible or unprovable), but I'm willing to work with it.. and shift thought around a bit.

Thoughts from 9/24

About sentient beings having life, but not all living things having sentience... Professor Johnson brought up the idea of some super computer possibly being able to acquire life. Is a blade of grass considered alive? If not, what can a computer have than a blade of grass cannot to say it is alive? If yes, what does the grass have that the computer does not to say it has life? I guess I am curious to see if there is something that a non-human made (natural?) thing has something that no human-made thing can have.

On another note, Taylor suggests that living things can have interests without being interested or having consciousness, and also be harmed or benefited without the awareness of this. If a tree is "harmed", it is us, humans, who decide it is harmed and have the knowledge of it, not the tree. It is only we who know it is harmed, the outcome of the harm is of no matter to the tree, and we therefore designate the tree or anything else for that matter to have a "good" as Taylor puts it. This "good" does not seem to me to be inherent, but only comes when we put it there. The harm is not so much the harm of the tree, but more to us who recognize the interconnectedness of the earth's biotic communities, as the destruction of forests lead to the destruction of other living things, including humans. I don't think a non-conscious living thing can have an interest in developing into its full biological powers. The interest is a human interest (if we choose it to be) who recognize the living thing's potential to benefit the community as a whole. If this is the case, the idea of organisms all being unique, irreplaceable individuals is disputed. I think many organisms are replaceable, especially non-conscious ones, and if not irreplaceable, at least easily forgotten in its original form, even though the energy must go some where. I think many organisms are not any more beneficial to the universe in a "living" state than in a new one, whatever that is, dead or something else.

Deer

I'm curious as to what Peter Singer would think about the act of thinning out the deer population for the benefit of the deer population as a whole (utilitarian?). The over population of deer is not only a problem for humans, but for deer themselves. Their food has become scarce (partially due to humans from urban sprawl and continuous development), and the competition for it has increased. This has made the average deer weaker than normal, and more susceptible to disease and sickness and a longer, more painful death. Are we obligated, having the awareness of this situation, to help out the deer population as a whole and allow responsible deer hunters, whom will use the deer to feed their families in an economic crisis where people need to choose between feeding their family and heating their house, to thin out the deer population, in which deer would experience a quick death, when many are dying slowly from hunger and sickness? Humans are partially responsible for this problem within the deer species, and we can help solve the problem by killing a few.

Animals For Food

I am not sold on the pain/pleasure justification for equality, from Singer's argument of humans and nonhumans should have equal consideration of interests (capacity for pain/pleasure). Especially with nonhumans, and even more so with instant death (or killing), as opposed to prolonged suffering. If one can justifiably kill in animal, once killed, it does not know or feel pain or suffering upon death. Of course the capacity for pleasure is taken away, but this is not known or felt upon death either. How can one justify killing the animal in the first place? I think with the lone intention of killing the animal for food. I think we are obligated to treat animals with respect and to not make them subject to suffering, however, if one makes animals a part of one's diet and always has, killing the animal for this purpose is in the nature of many humans, as it has been done since our dawn. I think animals which we make a part of our lives on an emotional level, etc. such as domesticated dogs and cats, and humanize them to a sense should not be killed for food, and the same applies to endangered species, which may play a vital role in the evolution of the planet and of our own species, as well as many others. If one species is removed, it effects many other components of life (ie. remove sharks, smaller fish populations explode, which will consume larger amounts of phytoplankton, which supplies most of our oxygen). Not much of an argument yet... but its my intuitive thought on the matter, and maybe I can build an argument as the class moves forward.

Breaking My Blog Virginity

From the comments about Hitler having good (moral) qualities for being a vegatarian:
If everyone has good (moral) and evil (immoral) qualities, can anyone rightly be called moral or immoral? There must be some line where one's morality outweighs that one's immorality or vice-versa for one to be labeled moral. And those (im)moral qualities must vary in degrees of (im)morality, because how would anyone outweigh one over the other? Or, does one have to have entirely (im)moral qualities to be labeled (im)moral?

Near the end of Sylvan's article, he (perhaps indirectly) brings up the problem of widespread ignorance of what is environmentally ethical (or could be), in the possible scenario of killing blue whales as an economically permissable act by the collective demand, because many are either misinformed or do not know if these whales even exist, what is happening to the whales, or the significance of their possible extinction. In such a scenario, could there be an environmental ethic that applies (legally, as in to outlaw the killing of blue whales?), whether people are ignorant to the situation or not? As Sylvan says, "Whether the blue whale survives should not have to depend on what humans know or what they see in television." With the environmental dilemmas we face today, however, people would need to subscribe to an environmental ethic on a massive scale. To stop the amount of CO2 we emit, for example, nearly the entire population would need to agree on an environmental ethic which would make emissions ethically wrong, as the effects of emission will devastate life which we are obligated to take care of, including our own, as we depend on environmental factors that are in danger of being destroyed.

The first step for the masses to adopt an environmental ethic of this kind is widespread education and awareness. As this is a pressing issue in which our survival, and the survival of other species we depend on, is at stake, ignorance on the issue cannot be tolerated. I think, therefore, what is taught in basic, pre-secondary education should be reevaluated on a global scale, to educate the masses with knowledge that is necessary for our survival, such as environmental issues, and other topics which closely effect the environment in which we live, such as sex education, which is being done in many countries with fast-growing populations; but are these people also educated on the environmental repercussions of over-population, and if so, in a way in which the educated actually care? Perhaps people should be educated in a way in which sexual activity as merely a pleasurable fulfillment is wrong, not just for the children that may come of the act, but for themselves, as they could be using the time given to them in a diffrent manner. I know this is another ethical issue in iteself and is breaching the lines of a religious-spiritual tone. But anyway...