Assignment Four – On Chapter Eleven “Higher Laws”

“Whatever my own practice may be, I have no doubt that it is part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other when they came in contact with the more civilized” (Thoreau: 207f.).

This is a statement made by Thoreau, supporting his idea of humans not being in the position of eating animals. Contrasting the idea of humans killing humans for food, and humans killing animals for food, appears to be an argument that is purposely chosen to cause a stir. Yes, humans left off killing humans after they came in contact with the more civilized, which were humans as well. They communicated, had a similar way of being, same evolution and for these reasons they might have came to the thought of killing each other would not be morally appreciated in their communities; that were most likely to emerge and develop from humans with the same needs and characteristics, settling and inhabiting the same regions.

If they left off killing humans, why did they not left off killing animals. That appears to be a question that can be answered in a few sentences. Humans kill animals since decades ago. We are known to be hunters, to survive from nature, including animals. In other words, that it lays in the history of human evolution, that we use animals as part of our nutrition. To discuss the question of if that can be a universal moral ideal or not, one has to focus on todays population.
            People kill animals for the joy of hunting. It is a wide spread sport, also practiced by royals and politicians, who are role models for many people. If they shoot animals for the joy of killing, then how can you make it a universal moral ideal to not kill animals at all? However, hunters also kill to keep populations in balance, as natural enemies are decreasing. And, not to forget, they also kill, to eat the meat. What if they only ate the meat of animals that they had killed to help the population stay stable?

Todays communities are much more modern, with other options and different needs. We do not have to go on a hunt if we want to consume meat. We just need to drive to the next shop, chose between different brands, sorts and preferences and pay for it as we leave. Now, of course there are people who live vegetarian or vegan. But not only they are disgusted by the excessive offer of meat, as well as the origins and keeping conditions of this meat. The media is, in regular intervals, flooded by food scandals. It is to see, that more and more people are concerned about their consumption of meat. They start wondering where their food is from, how it was kept, and how it was fed. Supermarkets start stocking up on organic ranges, not only meat but also vegetables, bread, dairy and other groceries. This shows, that people start getting conscious about the treatment of animals, and the consumption of meat and other foods, that are part of their nutrition.
            As long as people consider animals as part of their nutrition, and as long as they make a difference between animals that are for the use of food, animals that are considered to be pets (no one in our society would ever come to the idea to start eating or selling dog or cat meat . . . and if so: here we go, the next food scandal is lining up!), and as long as people enjoy eating meet, because they do not consider these animals to be part of their society or communities, they will not stop the consumption.

If there is something that we can consider as a universal moral ideal, regarding the ethic of carnivorism, then this ideal is, that we do not eat the cheapest meat, and no meat from which we do not know where it is from, and how it was held and grown. We will not be able to make this ideal any more vegetarian friendly, as long as our society is filled with many individual human minds, with many different needs, tastes, cravings and own moral ideals.

Assignment Five – On Chapter Twelve “Brute Neighbors”

What is character? A newborn might be born with character, but also maybe not. So how does ones character grow, and how is it build. As human beings, we experience situations, that we have to react to, or that we have to endure. These situations can be either positive or negative on us. Character also changes with where we grow up, how we grow up, what and whom we are surrounded with, and last but not least, what we want to be like. All these aspects create memories in our minds that we are able to reflect. Furthermore, we are also able to reflect not only situations, but also us. We are self-conscious, and we can reflect on our behavior, thoughts and mental state. This gives us the opportunity to work on us, and therefore on our character . . . if that what I just wrote is what creates character.  

When we observe other people, we tend to judge, which I think lays in our nature. We judge and compare others with us, and others. We label certain individuals as good characters, and others as bad or weak characters. The decision of who is bad and good lays in our very own concept of what is good and bad, and that again is based on our own reflection of situations and moments, and therefore very subjective.
The question now is, if character traits that we admire in another person are a matter of instinct, or not. Thoreau writes, that the instinctual behavior of animals can be seen as bravery, intelligence and spiritual depth. So who is braver? Person A who is naturally fearless, or person B, who copes with his fears, and manages to overcome them. One can say that person A has the bigger or stronger character, as he is fearless. But, if he has not any fear at all, he is brave by nature, and did not have to accomplish the situation. Whereas person B had to face his fears, think of options and then overcome his fears, which is also considered to be brave. Who is now the bravest?
If one of them acted instinctively, it would have been person A. He did not have to think of fears or strategies. He was fearless and therefore able to react without much thinking. That might be how animals manage situations. But: also animals fear things, and also in the moment when they get scared, they use their instinct to escape from situations. I would say, that as soon as a mind needs to consider his or her options, or rethink situations, it is no longer a reaction based on instinct. The human instinct may lay in their stomach, as that is where people say you should decide from whether to do something or not.
It is unfair to condemn those who are not brave, intelligent or whatsoever by nature. But it is also unfair to do so with the ones who are not brave or intelligent by nature, and who have to cope and struggle with conditions. Both are characteristics of a big character, which we would label to be good or strong. The only we can do, and what I would personally do as well, would be to appreciate the ones who overcome their fears a tiny bit more, as that gives them more trust in themselves and acknowledges their achievements.

Assignment Five – “Brute Neighbors“

We are just carbon based moving organisms and our souls are just chemical reactions. This may sound negative, but this is my conclusion whenever I think about it objectively. I’d love it to be different, and I often act as if it was different, but when I really think about it, this is always my conclusion.

Of course there are numerous factors which influence the development of our character, we generate memories and fondnesses depending on how we were raised and what we experienced. We even develop a self-consciousness—an ability to think about ourselves and even about the fact that ourselves are thinking. Of course do I have a personality, I can experience mine as well as those of others. There are people I like and people I don’t like, there are even people I love or hate. I can think about that; I can be conscious of me thinking about that. Why would self-reflection be any different than other forms of thinking. Maybe animals have thoughts about what they are doing, too, and we just don’t notice. Maybe what we think what are our thoughts, are just instinctive processes that manifest as the thoughts we articulate in our mind.

I believe—and I’d love it to be different—there won’t be anything after I died. I will just end. And my thoughts as well. And I wont even be around to recognize it. If there is nothing after me, why would there be anything before me? Is what we call my soul or personality predestined by a higher pool of directions and this is what we call instinct?

If we were acting according to any form of instinct, wouldn’t we have some general tropes in common? Well, people want to live. Not true. Some people also kill themselves. Are they exceptions from the rule? Or are they just the proof, that there is no rule?

Maybe being ticklish is instinctive. No, whait, I know people who aren’t ticklish. Closing your eyes if something gets thrown at you. Blind people won’t. Do they need to protect their eyes less then the seeing? As a seeing person you can overcome this reflex by training. Is that overcoming your instinct?

I am sure even among animals, there are exceptions for almost everything. For me, exceptions don’t proof the rule. There is no use in rules, if you allow exceptions.

Nobody is completely similar to another person, there are as many varieties as there are people on earth. Why do ants seam to act in this collective consciousnes pattern? Maybe they are more similar than we are. Maybe we just don’t recognize them being different to each other. To them, we probably all look the same as well—a giant pink meatsack that is bending over to look at me. Who hastn’t done that at least once? You? You, too? Everybody? Interesting, maybe we are not that different after all...

Assignment Four – “Higher Laws“

Do we live in the best of all possible worlds? I don’t think so. There surely is more than one possible course, our world could have taken and therefore there has to be one, that is the best. If we are looking for an ultimately true moral, this best world definitely is the place where we would find it. Unfortunately it is not in our humble human power to decide which one is the best. But we could approximate by standards on which we have to come to a conclusion. Unfortunately, as history shows and psychology dictates, we won‘t come to a conclusion about that, because the opinions what is best for mankind are as numerous as there are people who think about it. Allthough logically there has to be the one best model, our subjectivity is always in the way.

People talking about utilitarism usually mean a consequentialist—the quality of an action is evaluated by its consequences—system, that rates actions with regard to the overall amount of happiness that is generated by them. There are other forms of utilitarism, but this is very likely to be the one that Nagel has in mind. And it is a system that seems to have a lot of objective insight and therefore feels very logical and sensible to very many people; this does include me as well.

But this utilitarism, that I described here, is not a system at all. It is a basic idea upon which a utilizable system could be build. There have to be rules for evaluating the happiness that is produced by an action, but neither do we have a scale or unit to express definite amounts of happiness nor do we have a way of measuring happiness other than our intuition. This is where we encounter the problem of subjectivity again.

And even if we were able to agree on a moral system, that is completely based on common sense, we have “an animal in us“ (p. 167), as Thoreau describes it, that has all the urges we decided to oppress. Thoreau says that whoever is living after the best moral code is blessed and “[h]e is blessed who is assured that the animal is dying out in him day by day, and the divine being established.“ (p. 168) But to which degree can our inner urges be oppressed whithout resulting in a complete loss of indiviualism? I am not going to answer this rather big question, but it turnes the attention to the problem with questions of moral. It is impossible to draw clear lines because life is more complex than any logical system, we could ever establish.

All in all, Thoreau and Nagel indeed are right, mathematically there can be—and has to be—the best universal moral ideal, but there still is the individual at the end of this chain of command, that has to execute this ideal. And there will always—even with the best possible system—be someone who decides not to; and as long as this is the case the system is not in effect.

Assignment Three – “Sounds“

In this chapter Thoreau contrasts the sounds of nature with the sounds of the creeping industrialization. This contrast still exists today; but the tides have changed. As the sounds of technology seem to be an exception for Thoreau, the sounds of nature are the exception today. At least if you are living in a big city, where over the last few years even the birds have startet imitating the ringtones of the humans’ cellphones.

Classically he finds beauty in all the (conventional) birdsong, windblowing, insects, and all the other aspects of sounds of nature, that are described by most authors—especially in Transcendentalism. But he also enjoys the human made sounds to some degree. Not only does the passing train remind him of the screeching of hawks, but he then starts to elaborate about who is riding this train and for what purposes. His description of the sounds in this passage could be named the sound of industriousness, since he mostly speeks about the noises that are generated by the people who are working on and with the train. When the train has passed he feels “more alone than ever“, so he allegedly enjoyed the sound of the working people.

Nowadays working doesn’t make that much noise anymore. But working in an office excludes you from the sounds of nature as well. Most of the work is done inside and I believe that the majority of my generation actually is keen on spending time outside and is appreciating nature. Although we won’t every day be able to hear the birdsong as rich and beautiful as Thoreau did, the importance of nature is so well established, that cities—Hamburg does an above average job here in my eyes—offer parks and recreational facilities to make a small amount of nature accessible for their inhabitants in everyday life.

Admittedly the internet is as important as never before and will become even more important, but this doesn’t mean that you have to sit in front of your computer all day long anymore. The mobile internet is allready very wide spread and will be improved further and further. This point might seem sarcastic at first, but to a society that to a growing extent is happening in the internet this really is an important factor. These two developments are mutually supporting each other: the more accessible the internet is, the more important it will become and vice versa. The need for being in touch with nature is definitely existing and the ability to work, connect, play, or consume media wherever you want definitely does support the realization of this need.