PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 30th May: Sentient Animals

Dear Friends,

This Sunday we are discussing: Sentient Animals.

The topic was proposed by Ignacio, and in my short essay I discuss three
philosophical issues that might help us discuss this important topic.

Sentient Animals
https://www.philomadrid.com/2021/05/sentient-animals.html


In the meantime you can link to the current news and notices here:
https://www.philomadrid.com/2020/10/news-and-notices.html

-Alfonso has a new website and he gave us link to his latest book of
poems: Después

-Oscar's book on his reflections on COVID-19 is still available

-David J. Butler has published a new book "Absent Friends" regarding the
Cementerio Británico in Madrid

Finally if you have problems with Skype try launching it again if you
have the App or browser. Send me a message for the link.

Best and take care
Lawrence

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813
Email: philomadrid@gmail.com
http://www.philomadrid.com


PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 30th May: Sentient Animals

Sentient Animals

Sentient Animals

 

Topic by Ignacio

Essay by Lawrence

 

This topic is an extension of our discussion: Should pets be treated as property?

https://www.philomadrid.com/2021/05/should-pets-be-treated-as-property.html

 

In this essay I want to briefly explore three issues:

1)    Is a debate about sentient animals really a debate about speciesism?

2)    Is there a Turing test we can perform on animals to establish whether they are sentient.

3)    What is it like to be an animal?

 

But first to recap, there are many definitions of what we mean by sentient. Usually any definition would include: feelings, sensations, consciousness, self-awareness, sapience or wisdom. Today very few would deny that animals do not have these characteristics, the problem is that animal sentientism is not necessarily the same as other animal sentientism. And certainly animal sentientism is not necessarily human sentientism.  A sentient dog need not have the same sentientism of a cat. And even then, human sentientism does not mean that it is the gold standard of biological sentientism.

 

We can define speciesism in two ways: 1) Humans are the most important species and no matter how sentient other species are our moral superiority cannot be matched by other species. 2) No matter how sentient other species may be we are always more important than they are.

 

In a way, specialism is just a rational way of saying dominance over other species. Indeed, not only do humans dominate other animals, but we also dominate each other. There are many dictatorships on Earth today that treat fellow human being worse than animals in a zoo.

 

It may be argued that speciesism is nothing more than biological evolution and we happen to have won the natural selection process on land, whilst other animals have thrived in other environments, such as air or sea.

 

But this does not answer the moral question: we might have been the product of natural selection but we have also developed the concept of universalisable moral principles. Would not this imply that our morality should also extend to other species given that the race to dominate species was against other sentient species? In other words, we might be the dominant sentient species so by definition other species are also sentient. And by definition shouldn’t universal moral principles be extended to other species?

 

The Turing machine test is a mental method by Alan Turing to establish whether a computer can think like a human or not. Can a machine exhibit human like behaviour that it cannot be distinguished from a human being? The first problem we might encounter is to establish a test that mimics sentientism.  But of course, this sentientism must be compatible with the different sentientism of other species and breeds within species. For example some dogs are good at sniffing drugs after training, whilst others a good at being friendly. A Turing test must account for such differences; and there is no point asking human type moral questions. Even still, this does not mean that animals cannot be cunning or even act with malice; probably from perceived threat to life.

 

Some might argue that animals act from instinct, but so do human beings act from instinct: we run to catch a bus that’s at the bus stop; we hoard toilet paper during a pandemic etc. So instinct per se is not a disqualifier of sentientism. The question is still given that animals might be sentient in their own way, what are the implications to our natural selection dominance? And when answering the moral implications on whether animals are sentient we need to distinguish between “duty to care” and “duty not to cause harm.” I doubt whether human being pass with flying colours when distinguishing these two questions in the context of other human beings.

 

In the celebrated paper by Thomas Nagel, he asks the question "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" (1974). The paper was written in the context of consciousness, but today many would accept that animals are conscious creatures, maybe not conscious like human beings, but still conscious. Indeed how can animals be conscious like human beings, when for example a dog knows that we are carrying some strange substance or worse we are suffering from a disease?

 

According to Nagel, there has to be something that it is to be that organism (Wikipedia: and many other publications of the paper). Unfortunately, only a bat “knows” what it is like to be a bat; and I, therefore, propose bats who know what it is like to be a bat (or any other creature) are also successful animals. Even more, a successful animal is not behaving as if he was a successful animal, but rather he or she is being successful as the animal it is.

 

In effect before we can establish whether animals are sentient we need to establish whether human beings are morally sentient in the first place.

 

Best Lawrence

 

 telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813

 Email: philomadrid@gmail.com

 http://www.philomadrid.com

 

 

 

 

PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 23rd May: Children’s rights

Dear Friends,

This Sunday we are discussing: Children's rights (Rights of the child)

The topic was proposed by Ines and in my short essay I take a negative
view about the state of children's rights.

Children's rights (Rights of the child)
https://www.philomadrid.com/2021/05/childrens-rights.html

Of course, if you wish to propose a topic for discussion please let me
know.

In the meantime you can link to the current news and notices here:
https://www.philomadrid.com/2020/10/news-and-notices.html

-Alfonso has a new website and he gave us link to his latest book of
poems: Después

-Oscar's book on his reflections on COVID-19 is still available

-David J. Butler has published a new book "Absent Friends" regarding the
Cementerio Británico in Madrid

Finally if you have problems with Skype try launching it again if you
have the App or browser. Send me a message for the link.

Best and take care
Lawrence

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813
Email: philomadrid@gmail.com
http://www.philomadrid.com


PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 23rd May: Children's rights

Children’s rights

 

Children’s rights (Rights of the child)

 

Topic by Ines

Essay by Lawrence

 

 

Children are human beings, and any children’s rights are human rights. Children’s rights should not be understood as being some special rights that people enjoy until they are eighteen years old. Human rights should apply throughout the life of a person irrespective of how old they are. The challenge is what should apply to younger human beings and what should apply to adults.

 

But rights established for children should not be a substitute for any other rights. And these rights might be as Declarations of Human Rights, Conventions of the rights of the Child, constitutions, legal and judicial system, religious theology, and of course ethics and morality.

 

For example, the first Article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN) starts with, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” (1) Compare this with the first Article of the Convention on the Rights of the Child:  Article 1: For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.

 

The Child convention is a diluted version of the Declaration because the Child convention (Article 1) ends with: unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier. Under the convention what is a child depends on what national governments decide what a child is. This means that children’s rights are not universal rights or objective ethical or legal rights. In other words children’s rights are not as solid and universal as we would like to thinks.

 

The implication of this wording is that a child maybe of majority when still young, but this would imply the child can be tried as an adult despite being immature; consent to sexual union despite their body not fully developed and so on.

 

The value of a right depends on whether they are enforced or not and maybe whether children and adults have to mean to pursue their rights. And as we know a large proportion of children today are deprived of their rights, and more likely to be abused or murdered by adults. Dictators have exposed the myth of human rights; and constitutions, although they mean well, are most times equally useless or just slightly better. A drawback of constitutions is that they are enforced after the damage has been done.

 

And this is demonstrated by the fact that many countries import large amounts of goods that are made in places where the rights of children and adults do not really exist, respected or enforced. It is very convenient to argue that as a country we should mind our own business and not interfere in the activities of other countries; in the meantime it is quite handy to buy goods cheap made by slave labour.

 

Even people whose duty and responsibility is to protect children and provide security for them are just as like to abuse children’s rights and safety as any dictatorship. For example the Westminster paedophile dossier (3) that allegedly identified associates of the British government who were involved in child abuse was eventually lost according to some ministers. On a more international level we have the Catholic Church sexual abuse cases that involved members of the clergy abusing children over many years(4). What is strange about the Catholic Church cases is the absence of cases from other religions or some countries. What is clear is that adults are the natural predators of children so it is very hard to believe that everyone else is without sin.

 

According to the United Nations, “Victims of domestic abuse may also include a child or other relative, or any other household member.” (5) Apart from being the subject of domestic violence, children are usually also key witnesses of acts of domestic violence on one of their parents. The WHO include a key fact (6) that, “Globally, it is estimated that up to 1 billion children aged 2–17 years, have experienced physical, sexual, or emotional violence or neglect in the past year.” (Information for 2015/6: see link).  

 

The list of child abuse is endless, and I haven’t even mentioned war crimes against children, which is evidence in my opinion that children’s rights are practically meaningless utterances by politicians and those in authority to impress people. Maybe one of the problems is that children do not vote. It is telling that the Convention on the Rights of the Child does not suggest that children of a reasonable age should be given a vote or at least a sort of vote to express their opinion.  

 

 

(1)  (1) Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN)
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

(2) (2) Convention on the Rights of the Child
https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx

(3)  (3) Westminster paedophile dossier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_paedophile_dossier

(4)  (4) Catholic Church sexual abuse cases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases

(5)  (5)What Is Domestic Abuse?
https://www.un.org/en/coronavirus/what-is-domestic-abuse

(6)  (6) Violence against children
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-children

Best Lawrence

 

 telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813

Email: philomadrid@gmail.com

 http://www.philomadrid.com

PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 16th May: Should pets be treated as property?

Dear Friends,

This Sunday we are discussing: Should pets be treated as property?

Since the pandemic it has become common knowledge that there has been an
increase in the demand for pets. We are very fortunate in Spain that
many regional Communities and local councils take the welfare of animals
very seriously. I, therefore, thought and why I proposed the topic, that
we can have a look at this debate. In my essay I try to identify the
relevant issues.

Should pets be treated as property?
https://www.philomadrid.com/2021/05/should-pets-be-treated-as-property.html

In the meantime you can link to the current news and notices here:
https://www.philomadrid.com/2020/10/news-and-notices.html

-Alfonso has a new website and he gave us link to his latest book of
poems: Después

-Oscar's book on his reflections on COVID-19 is still available

-David J. Butler has published a new book "Absent Friends" regarding the
Cementerio Británico in Madrid

Finally if you have problems with Skype try launching it again if you
have the App or browser. Send me a message for the link.

Best and take care
Lawrence

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813
Email: philomadrid@gmail.com
http://www.philomadrid.com

PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 16th May: Should pets be treated as
property?

Should pets be treated as property?

 

Should pets be treated as property?

 

Topic and essay by Lawrence

 

 

The idea of a property is an idea of a personal right, especially a legal right, to use that property within a context in law. To be clear, in philosophy the term property may appear, for example, as a characteristic of an object or a personal right of ownership of an object. Although the topic question requires both considerations of the meaning of property at face value it is the second meaning of property that should concern us first.

 

We do not need to go too deep into the meaning of a property as an object of ownership. We start with the idea that something we own can be used as we want within the legal constraints of property ownership. We can sell our right to a property and we can pass on our property rights to others, for example as a gift to someone, or even as conveying a right to use our property for example when we invite friends over for drinks.

 

There is no issue that pets fall fair and square within the definition and scope of property as in the ownership of property. We can buy and sell pets, our legal ownership rights are protected by law and under the same laws we are bound on how we keep pets. For example in Spain dogs (as an example of pets) shouldn’t be left alone more than two hours. In Germany a member of parliament proposed that dogs have to be walked by law at least twice a day. These are well intended measures (ideas) by the state to protect animals from neglect, but this can also lead to serious practical complications in applying the law.

 

For example some dogs/breed can easily be left alone for longer hours if trained properly; other breeds need to be trained not to be possessive of their masters. And while dogs in Germany might be trained to walk under all weather conditions, I am sure many dogs and owners had a hard time earlier this year with the snow storm in Spain and especially Madrid. This perspective highlights the discrepancy between theoretical moral and ethical norms and practical applications of such normative morality.

 

In 2016 Profs. Gary L Francione and Anna E Charlton wrote an article “The case against pets“ in Aeon magazine (https://aeon.co/essays/why-keeping-a-pet-is-fundamentally-unethical) arguing that there should be no pets or zoos or animal farms: just true animal rights. The main argument of the authors is that if animals were property they can only be a thing.

 

The article is very interesting and worth reading, even though I totally disagree with the premise that if pets were our property they would be objects and, therefore, probably subject to neglect or lack of welfare. This is nonsense, just because something is our property it does not mean that I can do whatever I want with it or to it. Just because we own a flat it does not mean that we can rip off walls and structure at will: there are such things as planning permissions and regulations. Unfortunately, the authors tend to mix up pets with animals in general, veganism, wild animals and zoos etc etc.

 

Our topic is only concerned with domestic pets and not even exotic pets, such as lions, wolves or chimpanzees. Thus what might apply to pets does not necessarily apply to farm animals.

 

My second argument against the idea that if pets are a property it makes them an object, is based on property (ownership) being a characteristic of an objects. Pets have evolved from wild animals to domesticated animals by finding security in the company of humans and humans finding dogs useful for them. But being a property in not a characteristic of dogginess; property is a characteristic of humanness and our legal system. However, being a member of a pack for a dog is a characteristic of dogginess. The family or owners of the pet dog is the dog’s pack and they don’t care whether the family is functional or not or contracts or not. What matters for the dog is that there is structured and functioning pack to belong to: “who is my leader?”, “where is my position in the pack?” and “who are my direct peers in the pack?”

 

What is sure is that a pack of dogs would never elect dysfunctional leaders such as the ex President Trump or the ex Soviet President Stalin. This brings me to the other issue about pets, and animals in general, that is the matter of whether animals are sentient. The idea of sentience is whether animals are conscious, are creative, intelligent, self-aware and other characteristics.

 

As I write the British government is proposing legislation recognizing animals to be sentient. This is more of an issue regarding agricultural animals rather than pets, for example the transport of live animals. (“Animals to be formally recognised as sentient beings in UK law” The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/12/animals-to-be-formally-recognised-as-sentient-beings-in-uk-law?CMP=Share_iOSApp_OtherEvery pet owner).

 

In 2009 the American Psychology Association published a press release with the title: Smarter Than You Think: Renowned Canine Researcher Puts Dogs’ Intelligence on Par with 2-Year-Old Human (https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2009/08/dogs-think). Pet owners have a long time ago realised that dogs are sentient and no one has ever argued in modern society that a two year old human is an object or a property. So likewise an animal with the intelligence of two year old human demands some respect.

 

These issues with pets and property go back to when society believed that we were made in the image of God and therefore animals do not have the privileges of being human by virtue of our relationship with the gods. Whilst no reasonable person would agree that the welfare of our pets is not important it is quite acceptable to believe that dogs do not have the status of a human being. Of course, what matters for the dog is how functional is his or her family pack.

 

In 2019 the El País published an article: With more Spaniards living alone, pet numbers soar in the cities (https://english.elpais.com/elpais/2019/05/22/inenglish/1558512182_011864.html) they quote a dog owner from Valencia who said, “Dogs need to be dogs.” This is why our subject and the animal welfare debate needs to start with an understanding of the biological and evolutionary make up of our pets. The question is not whether dogs are not children or not (see the El País article), but rather what is the dog’s perception of our relationship to it?

 

The affirmation that dogs need to be dogs, implies that we have to learn how to integrate dogs and other animals into the functions of society. We cannot just let animals loose to their own free devices; they won’t survive out there. It is, therefore, well and good to legislate that dogs should not be left alone more than two hours, but this might conflict with needs of the owner of the dog. In many countries in the EU department stores and normal shops, including restaurants, allow patrons and clients to bring their dog onto the premises. On the other hand sometimes dogs need to wear a muzzle. But what is also true is that dogs in Europe are generally well behaved.

 

The problem here is a language one: not all dogs are created equal. A Yorkshire terrier should not be equalled to a Rottweiler; both dogs can be trained to interact civil in the community or a restaurant. But is it in the interest of the Rottweiler to be taken to a department store? It is a pity that dogs are not allowed in shops in Spain because this would be good quality time for the dog and their owner.

 

The Mexican/American dog trainer, Cesar Millan (Wikipedia:Cesar Millan), believes that the problems we have with dogs and dogs have with us are not the fault of the dog, but the fault of the people who own them. Countries should make owners of certain breeds of dogs subject to a training programme and licensing: it is not that big dogs are dangerous, but rather some owners are a danger to their pets. It is true that dogs are not children, but both dogs and children can be seriously harmed by some adults.

 

In conclusion, pets are more than just ownership property: indeed property is not a characteristic of dogginess or rabbitness or catness, but friendship and affection are characteristics of our pets.

 

Best Lawrence

 

 

 

 telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813

 

 Email: philomadrid@gmail.com

 

 http://www.philomadrid.com

PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 9th May: The consequences of population growth

Dear Friends,

This Sunday we are discussing: The consequences of population growth.

The topic was propoed by Clara and in my short essay I try to discuss
the background to this rather old problem in economics:
The consequences of population growth
https://www.philomadrid.com/2021/05/the-consequences-of-population-growth.html


In the meantime you can link to the current news and notices here:
https://www.philomadrid.com/2020/10/news-and-notices.html

-Alfonso has a new website and he gave us link to his latest book of
poems: Después

-Oscar's book on his reflections on COVID-19 is still available

-David J. Butler has published a new book "Absent Friends" regarding the
Cementerio Británico in Madrid

Finally if you have problems with Skype try launching it again if you
have the App or browser. Send me a message for the link.

Best and take care
Lawrence

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813
Email: philomadrid@gmail.com
http://www.philomadrid.com

PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 9th May: The consequences of
population growth

The consequences of population growth

The consequences of population growth - topic by Clara

 

 Essay by Lawrence 

 

 Thomas Malthus was one of the first economists to write about population growth in modern times. In his book “An Essay on the Principle of Population”, published in 1798, he came to the conclusion that when a country’s food production improves people tend to spend their newly gained prosperity in bearing more people. Eventually, the country will return back to low food supplies because of population growth. 

 

But the fear of population growth still persists today long after it has been shown that Malthus was wrong and the consequences of population growth are not a matter of food supply only. Indeed food supplies can be subject to mismanagement of agriculture, lack of an infrastructure to deliver food supplies, waste, over pricing, and today genetically modified organisms. The biggest threat to food supplies today is not climate change but rather biopiracy and more specifically, seed appropriation and patent law. 

 

Biopiracy is basically legally or illegally taking over of the knowledge and resources from countries and used for profit without sharing with the people who had their resources stolen. Similarly, is the appropriation of seeds from a country and then genetically modify and patent them thus making it illegal for local farmers from keeping seeds for the next season. There is no doubt that the powers that be are making a good profit for allowing such pilfering and robbery of their country. Today food has nothing to do with population growth or not. 

 

 In western countries today there are serious political movements who argue that immigrants are invading their civilized country because of population growth and because these immigrants are motivated by a desire to take local jobs. Usually the countries with the most vociferous anti immigrant movements are also the countries that held large empires in the world that plundered and ransacked resources from local peoples for centuries. 

 

What Malthus unwittingly pointed out was that when people have a stable life they prefer to stay put and raise a family rather than go to war, start revolutions and so on. 

 

One of the consequences of population growth is that wealth will eventually be distributed in smaller amounts but amongst more people. Sure there will be wealthier people, but also more wealth created. Today we know that there are many billionaires in the world, and we also know that wealth is still being inequitably distributed. However, when we talk about billionaires it does not mean that these people have piles of currency notes under their mattress or bank account. Their wealth is measured in terms of shares, asset portfolios, patents, ownership of companies and so on. And then there are those who money launder their illegal money. 

 

But from our perspective what matters is that before the fall of the Soviet Union people spoke of millionaires. Before the late 1980s the world was divided into more or less three spheres: the west with all the wealth and millionaires, the Soviet Union and Red China, and the rest of the poor world. The real wealth was held in the hands of the west especially because western countries were the bankers of the rest of the corrupt countries. According to Wikipedia in 1987 the population was about five billion people, today according to the WorldoMeter site (https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/) the population this week is about 7, 863, 972, 588 and counting. To compare, the European wealth in 2019 is estimated to have been 90,752 (US billion). The point is that for many adults alive today in the west we never experienced such a huge movement of people before the fall of the Berlin Wall. 

 

One real consequence of population growth is inflation especially of fixed property, which also happens to be a key component of wealth portfolio. The value of property is usually increased either by limiting access to desirable areas, or inflation. Unfortunately wages and salaries do not keep up with real earnings power. Hence, whilst, on paper many countries look rich and prosperous, especially with the deceptive per capita earnings, in reality wealth is not equitably distributed. Not everyone has the same purchasing power when a modest property costs a factor of dozens of years to pay it. 

 

The irony is that local people see immigrants as taking their jobs and creating scarcity of employment opportunities; immigrants see advanced countries as opportunities paved in gold. In the meantime it is well established now Europe needs a population boost just to maintain the present productivity rates. 

 

 In Chapter* Five of An Essay on the Principle of Population, Malthus rejects the idea of physically just giving money to the poor. He does, however, recognise that the rich can become poor and the poor become rich: this is still very true with shareholding millionaires today. However, the real problem of population growth must be instability in the development of a country or region. 

 

*An Essay on the Principle of Population, by Thomas Malthus https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4239/4239-h/4239-h.htm 

 

Best Lawrence 

 

 telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813 

 Email: philomadrid@gmail.com 

 http://www.philomadrid.com