Picture 2: Blackface, the traits of blacks are exaggerated to seem less human (reminds me of theriomorphism).

In the last few chapters of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, Rick Deckard is faced with twisted emotions towards androids, becoming attached to one, Rachel, who is helping him kill other androids. When they're together in bed, Rachael tells Rick not to "think too much about it...if you think too much, if you reflect on what you're doing- then you can't go on...from a philosophical standpoint it's dreary" (page 194). Essentially, she tells Rick to lie to himself, to pretend that she is a woman. The ambiguity of the real world seems to be a recurring idea throughout the book; it is hard to tell what is real and what is not. Towards the end of the book, Rick doesn't even know what he believes is right and wrong. He consults Mercer, who tells them that he "will be required to do wrong no matter where you go. It is the basic condition of life, to be required to violate your own identity" (page 179). In other instances, Buster Friendly reveals to everyone that Mercer, and thus Mercerism, is not even real. To this, Irmgard and the other androids decide that Mercerism exists only to separate humans from Androids based on a feeling that only humans can prove exists.

based on the anthropomorphic bases for the arguments. For example, some argue that since it cannot be proven that animals want to be free, or that they cannot feel pain like humans, that they do not have the right to be free, or to feel comfort. Those who argue that they do possess these qualities are participating in anthropomorphism. Others, utilitarians, argue that animals should be treated with respect, but there is a limit, "actions are not right or wrong in themselves, but only insofar as they bring happiness or cause pain" (page 177). Others believe man haThe complexity of reality obviously extends to the world we live in, outside the book. In Chapter 7 from Ecocentrism by Greg Garrard (the course packet) analyzes what humans know, what they think they know, and how they think of animals compared to the cultural context animals have in society. The first few pages detail some of the ways that groups of people think about animals, including liberationists, ecocentrists, utilitarians, and those who criticize them. It seemed that the arguments for animal rights (especially the liberationists) were disqualifieds the right to be in complete control of animals (based on divine power, reason, intelligence, etc,) Mostly, all of these arguments, like most other arguments, can be falsified in some philosophical way. Once again, what is right and what is wrong (reality) is lost. What I believe falls somewhere along the liberationist-ecophilosophy line; in the complex food web system, there are points where humans kill and eat animals (and the other way around), it is natural and sustainable, and probably has been happening for thousands of years. However, I believe it is wrong to mass produce, chemically alter, and routinely slaughter animals in unnecessary abundance and at the stake of the environment. The system that currently exists is damaging to our health, to the environment, and (in my opinion) to the welfare of animals. The concepts of intelligence, empathy, reasoning, etc. are just human-created ideas that are used to justify behavior that we would otherwise consider immoral. It has been used before, with other races and genders, and it is being used again now. This way of thinking is full of error though. Firstly, the true abilities of others can never really be known. Furthermore, these abilities differ among the human race, let alone among other species. There are humans who are far more intelligent, far less empathetic, or far more reasonable than others. Yet the common belief is that all humans have equal rights (even if they are not granted). If we grant rights based on superior qualities, then we must also rate these traits among humans.

On a quick environmental note, humans dominate animals and the Earth under the philosophy that we are something separate and better, that we have the right to dominate because we have the ability to. But, what species that dominates has ever been able to survive long? Using our "intelligence" (or reason) that makes us so separate from animals, shouldn't we realize that an Earth without biodiversity is an unhealthy Earth? On page 279, the reasoning of ecophilosophers is described: "in some cases, exploding populations of a certain species must be culled if they threaten a local environment as whole." The human species seems to be the one most fit for this description. Are we lacking in retrospect? The truth is that we are just a part of the biological system called Earth as plants and animals; the truth is, humans are treated no differently by nature than any other beings.




I couldn't really give an excellent philosophical argument like the ones we read, so I could only try to verbalize what I thought when I read these arguments. Basically, I think that the belief in human supremacy is wrong because it is unsustainable and because it attempts to justify suffering in other, sentient beings (who I believe can feel pain and happiness, if not more complicated emotions). I also think that when we can see pain and suffering, we should do all we can to try to stop it. As Jeremy Bentham said, "the question is not can they reason, nor can they talk, but can they suffer?"