Ethics

Think for yourself

Children are told to think for themselves.

Yet, that is mostly not what we really want them to do. Conformation to social norms usually takes precedence in the real world. So,

the real message is: Don’t think for yourself.

Do as we do.
And that is what most people end up doing.

What does that imply?

It implies that

children may get confused.

On the one hand they are told to make up their own mind, but on the other hand they are forced into obedience to social norms. In other words,

they are raised by their parents like princes/princesses but then subdued by their peers into slavery.

As a result people tend to live in a phantasy world. A world of make-belief, that we are rational and responsible moral agents. Yet, in reality

we are primates

copying our conspecifics. We imitate.

We imitate because

the whip of social coercion is painful.

It is painful and direct. Personal responsibility diverging from social norms is treated as treason.

It implies that

we are not nearly as rational as we often think we are.

This absolves us also from our moral responsibility.

It allows us to exploit animals and to destroy the world,

without feeling guilty, without remorse.

But not being rational and not being morally responsible also implies we are not much different from other primates and from other animal species.

We are animals.

People tend to hide in the crowd. They rarely want to take full responsibility for their actions. If they would, they should drastically change their habits, but if they don’t they should give up their notion of being special. Either way,

we need to change.

Either from thinking we are special, to really living up to it,

or from behaving like beasts to really accepting that we don’t deserve much better.

Think for yourself

FREEYUYEE

Below is the English text from Petition for Yuyee at Change.org (for descriptions in Spanish and Thai see Change.org). For some more recent coverage see this article in the Bangkok Post newspaper and this movie at vimeo (Februari 2015, see below).

http://vimeo.com/120287612

Petitioning to the new Thai Government (request to sign, i.e. give name and email address).

Please,
help me
free
Yuyee
for she
set free
a Thai
army
of soals like you and me!
See movie
Sign and RT plea!

http://youtu.be/72aAGTnoAf0

Please, sign the petition here and share!.

Yuyee has been in Ladyao jail since June 12th 2014. She was accused and sentenced to 15 years in jail for trafficking with 0,005 grams of cocaine (5 milligrams). She has not been able to hug her children since that day. She is sentenced to 15 years in jail for trafficking with an amount of drug which valued is 12 baht or 25 cents of a dollar. We have requested for bail 5 times on behalf of the well being of her 3 children, specially one with serious heart problems and all of the bail petitions have been denied.

The whole case has a lot of contradictions. Why a person who has no cocaine in her system (urine or blood) is going to carry 0,005 grams of cocaine? Why the police went straight for her, just coming down from a plane? Why she was pushed to sign a paper without a lawyer? Why the amount of cocaine changed 3 times and twice was said destroyed? We accept the law but we do not accept injustice. Because of this, we are requesting to the new Thai government to review this case as soon as possible.

Please, sign the petition here and share!

More Yuyee rhymes

Adds: Products related to Thailand from Amazon

AnimalMindedScience

This post describes my views, suggestions and campaign ideas related to the world-wide public consultation for the Dutch science agenda. Note that the deadline for submission of ideas has passed (May 1, 2015).

Introduction Tweets & Facebook posts on the approach method of #‎AnimalMindedScience Tweets & Facebook posts on key suggestions for #‎AnimalMindedScience First submission (English version): How to make the science agenda and society animal minded? Dutch version of the submission: Hoe kan de wetenschapsagenda en de samenleving het dier indachtig gemaakt worden? Conclusion Further specification in tweets

Introduction

The Dutch government and main science organizations have launched a public consultation on the future of science (Wetenschapsagenda in Dutch; science agenda in English). Until May 1 2015 all people in the Netherlands can submit questions concerning issues that should be addressed by science the coming years. By sharing these questions on Twitter and Facebook submissions can gain momentum when they are favorited/liked/shared. We believe it is important that the Dutch science agenda takes special interest in issues related to animals. For this we started a campaign on Twitter labeled as #‎AnimalMindedScience. The idea is that we want to solicit as much support as possible to emphasize this point. We therefor started a worldwide query for brilliant ideas concerning the Dutch science agenda (which we will translate in Dutch and submit before the deadline of May 1 here). In addition, for existing ideas such as the ones suggested below we’d like to request your support by way of Twitter retweets and/or favorites, and/or by Facebook likes and/or shares. But the very best place you can support submissions like ours is on the official site in English and/or Dutch! .

Tweets & Facebook posts on the approach method of #‎AnimalMindedScience

URGENT! Brilliant ideas needed to make Dutch science more ‪#‎AnimalMindedScience‬ <May1! Make NL science >> Animal Minded! PLZ vote for #AnimalMindedScience on Twitter or Facebook! Help make NL science more animal minded by RT or FAV sug < May 1! YOU can help make NL science more Animal Minded! How? Go to ‪#‎AnimalMindedScience‬ & Submit idea, OR RT existing one! Search ideas @ “#AnimalMindedScience & SHOULD” on TW / FB & VOTE by RT/FAV! E.g. #AnimalMindedScience SHOULD help make Animal Minded decisions E.g. #AnimalMindedScience SHOULD make animals happy

Tweets & Facebook posts on key suggestions for #‎AnimalMindedScience

#‎AnimalMindedScience‬ should show that lab animal suffering can be reduced substantially! #‎AnimalMindedScience‬ should prevent species from going extinct! #‎AnimalMindedScience‬ should show compassion in world farming! #‎AnimalMindedScience‬ should help feed the world without making animals pay the price! #‎AnimalMindedScience‬ should show that animals have feelings too! #‎AnimalMindedScience‬ should show that an apology is warranted for behaviorism, and its denial of animal feelings! #‎AnimalMindedScience‬ should study animal autonomy, freedom and justice! #‎AnimalMindedScience‬ should refrain from allocating budget to institutions responsible for creating welfare problems in the first place. #‎AnimalMindedScience‬ should reduce population growth! #‎AnimalMindedScience‬ helps people make AnimalMinded decisions. #‎AnimalMindedScience‬ should help people control damaging desires (like >>$$$ and pwr)! #‎AnimalMindedScience‬ should show that what we eat determines who we are! #‎AnimalMindedScience‬ should make veggieburgers taste better than real burgers! And both cheaper and more healthy as well!

First submission (English version): How to make the science agenda and society animal minded?

Sustainability and economics are important themes. The Netherlands is only 41.5k km2 with 17m people and billions of animals. The balance between the interests of people and animals must be restored. Firstly, an animal-minded science-agenda demands a critical redirection of the budget for research involving laboratory animals to substantially reduce suffering. Secondly, it addresses wildlife issues such as species preservation, climate change and welfare in zoos, the exotic pet trade and fisheries. Thirdly, it solves pet problems (e.g. trade, abandonment, breeding, neglect and social isolation). Finally, but not least importantly, it solves production problems of livestock (e.g. breeding, housing, transport, slaughter and consumer demand). The animal-minded science agenda not only studies problems, but actually solves them, both at the perceptual and technological levels. This requires an elevated focus on ethics, psychosocial, epidemiological, big-data and technological research strategies. The current agnosticism regarding animal feelings is still dominant and needs to be counteracted. Similarly, the perceived importance of material hedonism needs to be challenged. Perhaps, science should even enable politics to discourage economic and population growth, and develop technological alternatives to the sacrifice of animals for medical ‘hope’ research, as well as alternatives to the consumption of meat and dairy products. Note: this English version was submitted here, but English was not allowed, so I submitted a Dutch version as well (see below, or here).

Dutch version of the submission: Hoe kan de wetenschapsagenda en de samenleving het dier indachtig gemaakt worden?

Duurzaamheid en economie zijn belangrijke thema’s. Nederland is slechts 41.5k km2 met 17m mensen en biljoenen dieren. De balans tussen de belangen van mensen en dieren moet hersteld worden. Allereerst, vereist een dier-indachtige wetenschapsagenda een kritische herverdeling van onderzoeksbudget voor proefdieren om het lijden drastisch te verminderen. Ten tweede, komt er aandacht voor wilde dieren, zoals behoud van biodiversiteit, klimaatsverandering en welzijn in dierentuinen, de handel in exoten en visserij. Ten derde, lost het problemen op met gezelschapsdieren (bijv. handel, wegdoen, fokkerij, verwaarlozing en sociale isolatie). Tenslotte, maar niet minst belangrijk, lost het problemen op met de productie van vee (bijv. fok, huisvesting, transport, slacht en (de behoefte aan) consumptie). Een dier-indachtige wetenschapsagenda bestudeert niet slechts de problemen, maar lost deze ook feitelijk op, zowel qua perceptie als technologie. Dit vereist meer focus op ethiek, pychosociale, epidemiologische, big-data en technologische onderzoeksstrategieën. Het huidige agnosticisme m.b.t. de gevoelens van dieren is nog dominant en moet uitgedaagd worden. Misschien moet het onderzoek aan de politiek wel de mogelijkheid verschaffen om de economische – en populatiegroei tegen te gaan, en technologische alternatieven ontwikkelen voor het opofferen van dieren voor medisch ‘hoop’ onderzoek en ook alternatieven voor de consumptie van vlees en zuivelproducten. Note: See English version above or at the Wetenschapsagenda website. Note: this version may be removed from the website of the science agenda, because they don’t allow English submissions. Later, the Dutch version was submitted as a separate question: Hoe kan de wetenschapsagenda en de samenleving het dier indachtig gemaakt worden? (above or here).

Conclusion

Please support these submissions on Twitter by retweet/favorite and on Facebook by liking/sharing. But the very best place of support is at the submissions on the official site in English and/or Dutch! There you can also submit new ideas that need to be included in the science agenda. But if you understand Dutch and live in the Netherlands, you can also submit yourself here.

Further specification in tweets

I love you now, little puppy
but when you’re grown I won’t
and when I’m grown I’ll be a stone.

Hè, you!
Scientist in your glass bowl
please come out into the real world
where feelings matter!

#AnimalMindedScience:
* replaces self-interested objectivity with objective other-interestedness.
* will reveal that our highest good is neither heaven, nor eternal life or beauty, neither omniscience nor omnipotence.
* shows respect for all soals, all subjects-of-a-life, equally, for justice overrides selfishness.
* shall bring mankind back down to eye-level with the other animals.
* shall support the democratic agenda of protecting the least-well-off, and one vote for all.
* will never never mind, as science has done.
* follows the golden rule: Don’t do to otters what you wouldn’t others have do to you.
* shall not be the slave of public opinion, nor its master. They will co-evolve mankind.
* would never do to society what science has done to animals.
* will transform the clever man (homo sapiens) into the wise man (homo sapiens empaticus).
* does not treat humans as if they were animals, nor animals as if they were humans.
* will never again never mind.
* is to science what man has been to ape in evolution.
* is a matter of keeping balance
* shall support the conservative agenda of preserving what is good about the past.
* shall support the democratic agenda and give animals a vote.
* shall support the liberal agenda of freedom for all.
* supports the Labour agenda of demanding labour rights for animals, e.g. to work for food in a species-specific way.
* shall never treat other animals as just animals.
* was not born out of idealisme, but out of necessity, both moral and physical necessity.
* The more #AnimalMindedScience will be rejected, the more it will be needed and demanded.
* bends what was straight, and straightens what was twisted.
* acknowledges that we belong to the family of soals (subjects-of-a-life).
* treats all soals, ie all subjects-of-a-life, as equals, and not some as more equal than others.
* turns our world upside-down. Linear suppression becomes soal (subject-of-a-life) centralization.
* is for animal welfare what cradle-to-cradle is for the environment.
* says ‘No!’ to more money making
* says ‘Yes!’ to tender loving care.
* blows dust on science, so as to get rid of nasty parasites.

The dark forces ruled society, ignoring the needs of helpless animals…

Foal on back:
I’m on my back
want you to get back
on track
Mind our fate
before it is too late

Owl:
I’m a wise bird of prey
I do as I may
Tell you to mind
And ever be so kind

Giraffe tongue:
I lick.
I like.
My tongue
is strong.
I tell a tale
of human primacy gone stale

Lion:
I’m sexy and I know it
I’m sexy and I’ll show it
Unless you’re a boar, you’ll listen to my roar

In nature power implies the ability to mate and perpetuate life. Powerful ideas like #AnimalMindedScience are sexy.

We belong to the animal kingdom. We shouldn’t rule it.

If we breed like rabbits, crawl the earth like ants, and dig burrows in it like rats, we won’t be the crown of creation, but a problem pest.

@AnimalMinded Digital soal. Interested in everything about animals, including farm & lab animals, wildlife & pets.

Look at me!
I’m the king.
My kingdom comes.

Quotes

Philosophers

He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals (Immanuel Kant).

The question is not, “Can they reason?” nor, “Can they talk?” but rather, “Can they suffer?” (Jeremy Bentham).

The reasons for legal intervention in favour of children apply not less strongly to the case of those unfortunate slaves and victims of the most brutal part of mankind – the lower animals (John Stuart Mill).

Scientists

The love for all living creatures is the most noble attribute of man (Charles Darwin).

If a man aspires towards a righteous life, his first act of abstinence is from injury to animals (Albert Einstein).

Our task must be to free ourselves… by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty (Albert Einstein).

If only we can overcome cruelty, to human and animal, with love and compassion we shall stand at the threshold of a new era in human moral and spiritual evolution – and realize, at last, our most unique quality: humanity (Jane Goodall).

During my medical education at the University of Basle I found vivisection horrible, barbarous and above all unnecessary (C.G.Jung).

Spiritual leaders

May all that have life be delivered from suffering (Buddha).

When a man has pity on all living creatures then only is he noble (Buddha).

Killing animals for sport, for pleasure, for adventure, and for hides and furs is a phenomena which is at once disgusting and distressing. There is no justification in indulging is such acts of brutality (The Dalai Lama).

Not to hurt our humble brethren (the animals) is our first duty to them, but to stop there is not enough. We have a higher mission–to be of service to them whenever they require it… If you have men who will exclude any of God’s creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men (Saint Francis of Assisi)

One day the absurdity of the almost universal human belief in the slavery of other animals will be palpable. We shall then have discovered our souls and become worthier of sharing this planet with them (Martin Luther King, Jr).

The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated (Mohandas K. Gandhi).

I abhor vivisection with my whole soul. All the scientific discoveries stained with innocent blood I count as of no consequence (Mohandas Gandhi).

Statesmen

Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages (Thomas Edison).

Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages (Thomas Jefferson).

I am in favor of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being (Abraham Lincoln).

What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, man would die from a great loneliness of the spirit. For whatever happens to the beasts, soon happens to man. All things are connected (Chief Seattle).

Authors

As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields (Leo Tolstoy).

What I think about vivisection is that if people admit that they have the right to take or endanger the life of living beings for the benefit of many, there will be no limit to their cruelty (Leo Tolstoy)

It may be suggested by some books that it is not a sin to kill an animal, but it is written in our own hearts – more clearly than in any book – that we should take pity on animals in the same way as we do on humans (Leo Tolstoy).

In fact, if one person is unkind to an animal it is considered to be cruelty, but where a lot of people are unkind to animals, especially in the name of commerce, the cruelty is condoned and, once large sums of money are at stake, will be defended to the last by otherwise intelligent people (Ruth Harrison, author of Animal Machines).

Other

Killing an animal to make a coat is sin. It wasn’t meant to be, and we have no right to do it (Doris Day).

We must fight against the spirit of unconscious cruelty with which we treat the animals. Animals suffer as much as we do. True humanity does not allow us to impose such sufferings on them. It is our duty to make the whole world recognize it. Until we extend our circle of compassion to all living things, humanity will not find peace (Albert Schweitzer).

A man is ethical only when life, as such, is sacred to him, that of plants and animals as well as that of his fellowman, and when he devotes himself helpfully to all life that is in need of help (Albert Schweitzer).

Atrocities are not less atrocities when they occur in laboratories and are called medical research (George Bernard Shaw).

It is not THIS bloodshed, or THAT bloodshed, that must cease; but ALL bloodshed – all wanton infliction of pain or death (Henry Salt).

The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men (Leonardo Da Vinci).

The medical argument for animal testing doesn’t stand up. Even if it did, I don’t think we should kill other species. We think we’re so much better; I’m not sure we are. I tell people, We’ve beaten into submission every animal on the face of the Earth, so we are the clear winners of whatever battle is going on between the species. Couldn’t we be generous? I really do think it’s time to get nice. No need to keep beating up on them. I think we’ve got to show that we’re kind (Paul McCartney).

I would look at a dog and when our eyes met, I realized that the dog and all creatures are my family. They’re like you and me (Ziggy Marley).

Source: Betterworld quotes

Diet

Choosing an animal-friendly diet may well be the single most important contribution to animal welfare one can make as an individual.
The welfare of farm animals is most problematic, because of its scale and because of its financial constraints.
Diet selection affects animal welfare directly on a daily basis.
Becoming a vegetarian or vegan also has an impact on one’s identity. You are what you eat.
It takes an effort to go veggie, but it is also a signal. It shows you have compassion, that you care. It also indicates that you are likely to disagree with the legal framework under which the raising and slaughter of animals for food consumption is still allowed. It is hard to predict how long this is going to continue. Perhaps a very long time. However, inevitable the time will come that livestock farming will no longer be acceptable, neither morally nor legally.

Purpose in life

In search for one’s purpose in life you may ask yourself five simple questions:

1. Who am I?
2. What do I do?
3. Who do I do it for?
4. What do they need?
5. How do I make a difference?

Animal welfare can be a purpose in life. If so, you may want incorporate animal welfare in your personal or professional life, or you may join an animal welfare organization. However, if you are not sure yet, or if you have tried it, but have started to wonder whether you are on the right track, it could be most valuable to have a purpose-in-life conversation or workshop addressing questions like these:

* What is the purpose of having a purpose in life?
* What is a life worth living?
* Do animals have a purpose in life?
* How important is animal welfare?
* Can animal welfare be my purpose in life?
* How?

You may indicate interest in the comment box below.

Credit default swaps

Credit Default Swaps (CDSs) have a bad name. They created the bubble of speculation that led to the financial crisis. Banks used Credit Default Swaps to spread the risk on loans. However, in a modernized form Credit Default Swaps may provide animal welfare solutions.
When you are in the animal welfare business, like in any other type of business, it may be necessary to invest. However, when it is not clear that you will be able to pay, it may be difficult to get a loan. In this case it may be an option to exchange, i.e. ‘Swap’ products or services. You do something for me, I do something for you. When under such an agreement either party fails to deliver what has been agreed, i.e. in case of ‘Default’, the agreed exchange in natura may be transformed into a monetary dept, i.e. into ‘Credit’. Hence, in order to run an animal welfare business I propose contemplating the use of ‘Credit Default Swaps’: to exchange products and services so you can do your business and I can do mine, without actual payment, unless either party fails to deliver. Such Credit Default Swaps can help to get work done. You scratch my back, I scratch yours, tit for tat.

Further information:
Credit default swap on Wikipedia
Citations:
“A credit default swap (CDS) is a financial swap agreement that the seller of the CDS will compensate the buyer in the event of a loan default or other credit event. The buyer of the CDS makes a series of payments (the CDS “fee” or “spread”) to the seller and, in exchange, receives a payoff if the loan defaults. ”
“CDSs are not traded on an exchange and there is no required reporting of transactions to a government agency.”
“The buyer makes periodic payments to the seller, and in return receives a payoff if an underlying financial instrument defaults or experiences a similar credit event.”
Tit for tat on Wikipedia

Willful blindness

Definition: Willful blindness is a legal term, which means that if there is knowledge that you could have had or that you should have had, but choose not to have, you are still responsible. Willfully blind individuals seek to avoid liability for a wrongful act by intentionally putting his or herself in a position where he or she will be unaware of facts that would render him or her liable. For example, persons transporting packages containing illegal drugs have asserted that they never asked what the contents of the packages were and so lacked the requisite intent to break the law. Such defences have not succeeded and courts have argued that the defendant should have known what was in the package and exercised criminal recklessness by failing to find out.

Symptoms: Willful blindness can be recognized by the use of jargon. In order to ‘cover up’ a problem people will refrain from using ‘judgemental adjectives and speculation’. For example they will prefer using the word ‘issue’, rather than ‘problem’, and ‘discrepancy’ or ‘does not perform to design’ rather than ‘defect’. Concerning ‘animal welfare issues’ words like ‘animal suffering’, ‘rights’ or ‘exploitation’ will be avoided and the term ‘current/modern livestock farming’ will be used instead of ‘bio-industry’.

Other phenomena associated with willful blindness include inbreeding, obedience, reluctance to change, stress, fearfulness, suspicion and a tendency to cross one’s arms and point to others, indicating that the responsibility belongs to someone else.

Pathogenesis: Willful blindness is caused by a perceived necessity. It may affect individuals and institutions, especially, when there are severe financial constraints. In the process of cost-cutting, ignorance becomes incredibly valuable, because once you start cutting to the bone you don’t want to know about the consequences of what you just did. Silence facilitates willful blindness. Even when many people in an organization may have a responsibility to fix a problem, nobody may take that responsibility, and hence act willfully blind. Predisposing factors for willful blindness include a deeply compassionate culture, a very steep hierarchy and size. In very large and complex organizations a true assessment of consequences is often almost impossible. Further predisposing factors include being exhausted or overstretched. If so, you can’t see, because you can’t think. Also, too many people from the same background will share the same values, beliefs and blind spots. In organizations where it isn’t felt to be safe to raise concerns or ask challenging questions, employees will focus on their task, obedient and conformist, and they suppose that because anyone can see the problem, someone else will do something. This is the main problem of willful blindness: that people are afraid to speak out, because they know they will be shot down, or imagine that they will.

Examples of willful blindness include the above-mentioned drug couriers, web providers denying they were responsible for illegal copy-right infringements on downloads of their users, the production of unsafe cars and aeroplanes, and medical errors like the practice of using x-ray technology to diagnose pregnant women (causing child cancer).

In an organization displaying willful blindness there will be a tendency to protect the system. If necessary the problem will be attributed to ‘a few bad apples’, which means that the system is immune. However, in willful blindness there is almost always a systemic failure.

It is also important to realize that the context can turn good people bad. Really good people can be transformed into bad guys by playing roles in a particular situation where that situation is validated by a system. This is what happened in Abu Ghraib, the American military run prison in Iraq where jailers, exhausted and abandoned by their superiors, humiliated prisoners and took pictures on their cell phones. One of the prison guards was an American patriot. Before Abu Ghraib he was active in Kuwait, trying to learn the language and working with children. He worked in the Abu Ghraib dungeon, starting his job starts at 4 pm for 12 hours, until 4 am in the morning. He slept in a prison cell in a different part of the prison, and he never left the prison for 3 months. This caused environmental overload. In addition, half of the prisoners had no clothes. They were naked all the time because they didn’t have enough prison uniforms. The prisoners didn’t speak English and there were only a few showers. This led to a gradual dehumanization. The prisoners seemed like, smelled like and looked like animals. If so, you begin to think of them as animals and treat them accordingly. At no point did the guards think that anything they were doing was wrong. Such is the power of the situation in causing willful blindness.

Therapy: To counteract willful blindness it is important to create a culture in which everyone can and wants to speak out. An example is what is called the ‘just culture’ in the Aviation industry. When it comes to safety performance competing companies openly collaborate. Required for establishing a just culture is for companies to make a public statement and to live up to the standards. It will take courage, skills and practice, e.g. it would involves hiring of more ethical personnel and the cultivation of conflict. People must be willing to take action in defence of people in need and foster a need heroic leadership. It helps if you can think of yourself as a hero in training.

Prognosis: It is doubtful if we will ever get rid of willful blindness. It’s main function is to protect the status-quo (until it is no longer tenable).

Animal welfare solutions: In the way we are presently treating animals all ingredients for willful blindness are present. Hence, there should be no doubt that willful blindness plays a major role in protecting the immoral and illegal interests of people, organizations and institutions responsible for major animal welfare infringements.

Sources: Margret Heffernan’s TED talk ‘Dare to disagree‘ (also available here). See also Willful blindness on Wikipedia.

Moral dilemma

Here is a moral dilemma in a thought experiment. You see a train coming down the track towards a group of workers. Standing near a lever, you must decide whether to leave the lever along and let the train kill the workers, or to pull the lever to let the train change tracks and kill only one worker on s subsidiary track. What would you do?

This moral dilemma can be considered using a consequentialist, deontological and virtue-ethics framework. According to consequentialist view something like the greatest good for the greatest number of people is to be obtained. Prima facie, a utilitarian might prefer to pull the lever. Deontology prescribes duties, such as not killing people. Prima facie, a deontologist might not pull the lever, e.g. because of the duty not to be actively involved in the killing of an innocent person. Finally, a virtue ethicist might focus on one’s capabilities, e.g. practising intellectual virtues like theoretical and practical wisdom, and moral virtues like prudence, justice, temperance and courage. Prima facie, a virtuous agent might pull the lever, in as far as this is in accordance with the human/societal flourishing.

A thought experiment like this is not just a theoretical exercise. When dairy farmers are confronted with exploding field mouse populations, it may cost about 100.000 Euro’s/dollars per farm. Population control using poison is considered socially undesirable, and alternatives like drowning and gassing also have serious drawbacks. As a result, farmers prefer to wait for a cold spell, such that large numbers of mice would be frozen to death. Another example is the myxomatosis rabbit. It has swollen eyes, sits by the side of the road and doesn’t run away. Such rabbits don’t eat and will eventually die when left alone. However, it may be more humane to take a minute to kill the rabbit so as to reduce unnecessary future suffering. The train, the mice and the rabbit constitute moral dilemma’s because they involve a choice between being passive or being active, and between more or less harm done to the individuals concerned.

Train: Pull lever → 1 person dies; don’t pull lever → 5 die
Mice: Poison/gas/drowning →quicker death; wait for cold →slower death
Rabbit: Hit → quick death; leave along →die more slowly

What is better: to stand by and let ‘nature’ take its course, or to act so as to reduce overall harm?

The morally best course of action would be to do one’s duty in minimizing harm and maximizing happiness and flourishing. While contributing to happiness and flourishing may be supererogatory, i.e. morally good/laudable but not required, it is a morally required obligation to refrain from causing considerable harm to others whenever possible.

In general, moral dilemma’s can be solved relatively easily. This is because the bigger the dilemma, the smaller the difference between the moral value of the alternatives. Hence, the bigger the dilemma, the more likely it is that the problem can be solved by tossing a coin. For tossing either will make you do what is morally right, or it will make you do what approaches doing what is morally right, and there is no strong moral obligation to be perfect.

Another route to solving moral dilemma’s may be to critically examine the underlying assumptions, e.g. that non-human animals can suffer and that human lives are valuable. When animals were mere reflex machines, then all concern about animal welfare would be erroneous, and the moral dilemma’s of the mouse overpopulation and the myxomatosis rabbit would dissolve instantly. Similarly, when humans were only destroying the earth by overpopulation and self-interested hedonistic materialism devoid of moral decency, or something like that, then we may be mistaken about the presumed value of human life. If the railroad workers were in fact morally equivalents of somebody like Hitler, then surely the approaching train could be turned into a moral solution, rather than a moral dilemma.

Urgent

If I had one more day to live. What would I do? Or better, what should I do?

Should I visit family and friends? If only I were a person person, I guess I should say goodbye. But I am not, i.e. people are not all important for me Actually, no person or place ought to be in dire need of seeing another, when having had ample opportunities to do so in the years before So, no, if I had one more day to live, I shouldn’t spend the time on family and friends.

What about visiting new places I haven’t seen before? I’m sorry, but the same argument applies here. If you haven’t seen it by the time you die, it’s probably not worth it, unless, of course, you have forgotten to live while you could. In any case, I wouldn’t be able to enjoy visiting a new place with so little time left.

Perhaps I would like to say something about what I should or should not have done in my life, or I might want to say something about how I would like the world to be. The latter is certainly the case. I would like to see the world become a better place, inhabited by people who care more for what they do to other sentient beings, esp. what they do to non-human animals.

I have spent my life in an environment where the status quo has been over-protected. I have accepted social pressures severely limiting my freedom of speech in a way I have always considered to be morally unacceptable. Yet, for the sake of job, social and financial security, I have let ‘them’ make me silent. I’ve tried to improve the world for animals from within. With little or no success. I have failed in many respects. So, if I only had one more day to live, I would like to say: “Please, be aware of the fact that animals matter morally; that they deserve our respect, and that practices involving deliberately-inflicted animal suffering such as castration, debeaking and tail docking should stop immediately, despite the apparently counter-intuitive suggestion that these procedures are sometimes conducted for the so-called benefit of the animals too. They are not.”