#philosophicaldiscussions

Intersubjectivity, in the traditional sense, is defined as a state of overlapping individual understandings. One significance of this concept is that it serves as a means by which phenomenology becomes sufficient in the process of cognizing. Intersubjectivity accounts for objectivism of cognition, given that “no cognition could with reason be called objective unless it be a cognition effectively the same for all possible objects. A subject can only be a subject in a community of subjects, wherein a subject recognizes a personality of a higher order, its correspondent as Husserl calls it, Kulturwelt. It is in this where intersubjective verification of subjective insights ought to take place. Husserl claims that in this process, the intersubjective a priori ought to expand, and not to contradict, the subjective a priori. It can be said that intersubjectivity taken in this light places emphasis on finding a common denominator among all subjectivities. There is a tendency to disregard disagreements, viewing them as merely hindrances that need to be resolved in order to arrive at a final agreement. However, it is argued that disagreements constitute intersubjectivity, in such a way that it is in the process that intersubjectivity takes place. Intesubjectivity in the traditional sense is what is found. The proposed notion is that it is the process itself which is intersubjectivity. Intersubjectivity is not finding objective cognition. It is creating one. It is in the state of discord that intersubjectivity is achieved. It is the clashing, not the consensus. This leads one to ask what this would imply about Objective cognition/knowledge. The notion of “objective” as something eternal and unchanging is transformed into something that changes as the experiences of subjectivities progress. Experience is never stagnant. It follows that what is common among all experiences would continually be altered. Intersubjectivity, as seen this way, serves as a criticism of the first notion, yet it also defeats the long-held view about the Objective.   The following can be argued, then: that (1) Intersubjectivity does not support Objectivity as it is normally held, and (2) Intersubjectivity supports a kind of Objectivity that is subjective.

By JD Item, Mia Lua and Christopher Porras

Philosophical Discussion

Animals in captivity. Manila Zoo.

(from PETA Investigative Report on Mali: The Manila Zoo’s Aging and Ailing Elephant)

The Manila Zoological and Botanical Garden features an Asian Elephant named Mali. She was born in Sri Lanka in 1974 and was only 3 y/o when shipped in the Philippines. She is the only captive elephant in the country. In the wild, elephants like Mali travel in close-knit matriarchal groups. Female elephants spend their time in socialization. They have homes ranging from 25000 to 60000 hectares while roaming up to 80 kilometers a day – a necessary activity for their well-being. Manila zoo has only 5.5 hectares. Mali has no opportunity to engage in any activities that a normal elephant needs for their physical, mental and emotional health such as grazing, plucking fruits and leaves from trees, taking mud baths and playing in the water.

Leading zoo organizations – including Association of Zoos and Aquariums in U.S. – require accredited facilities to provide minimum enrichment, including rocks, tree stumps, or large and sturdy objects for rubbing against and scratching. Mali has none of these, and the only form of enrichment is a small pool at the back of her enclosure. These organizations also recommend that elephants must be kept on natural substrates as much as possible to keep their feet healthy and infection-free. Mali’s enclosure is only of concrete. These elephants also eat up to 80 types of plants whereas Mali is only fed with pechay, bananas, carrots, cornstalk and pineapple.

The physical and mental frustrations that captive elephants endure often lead to abnormal, neurotic and even self-destructive behaviours called “zoochosis” or “stereotypy”. Zoo visitors see Mali pacing incessantly or standing in one spot with her trunk to the ground. She’s been seen walking to the edge of her enclosure and reaching out her foot in the hope of getting farther. According to people who witnessed one such incident, when Mali felt empty space, she stepped back and repeated the same behaviour. Finally realizing that there was nowhere to go, a dejected Mali walked aimlessly around her enclosure, picking debris off the ground. Clearly, Mali is profoundly depressed.

Animals raised and improved for consumption. KFC.

(from KFC is cruel to chickens, says animal rights group By Michael McCarthy Environment Editor)

...The world's biggest chicken restaurant chain, is being pressured to make life better for the birds it uses with a campaign from the world's biggest animal rights organisation, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta).

In Britain there is wide acceptance, from the Government down, that conditions for broiler chickens – birds intensively bred for meat – are now the most serious remaining farm animal welfare problem, with millions of the 820 million birds bred every year dying before slaughter from illnesses or cramped conditions.

Peta says it wants KFC to end what it claims are "crude and ineffective" electric stunning and throat-slitting to kill birds and replace the process with gas. It also wants the forced rapid growth of chickens to be phased out, more space for each bird, and "minimal enhancements" to the birds' living conditions, such as sheltered areas and perches to provide them with some semblance of their natural environment.

It also calls for automated chicken-catching to reduce the high incidence of bruising, broken bones and stress associated with catching the chickens by hand.

Dawn Carr, director of Peta Europe, said: "KFC is the world's largest killer of chickens, and as such has a responsibility to treat these birds humanely. Nearly 800 million chickens are killed every year in the cruellest ways imaginable. Although our ultimate aim is for people to go vegetarian, we are calling on KFC to implement some welfare standards and make life a little bit better for these birds."....

***

The animals’ capacity for conscious and social life gives animals full moral status. Peter Singer argued that utilitarianism should be extended to all conscious creatures, thus including the welfare of animals in the maximization of good consequences. Animals are conscious and are capable of feeling pain and pleasure, having preferences and interests just as humans do. In this respect, according to Singer, their interests should be considered equally with those of humans.1

Mali, the Manila Zoo elephant is a perfect example of ignoring animal welfare. For 30 years, Mali was held captive in an internationally-condemned cage with no other elephant to keep her company. In this very miserable condition, Mali developed depression and had to undergo therapy. The act of caging animals is against animal interests. In effect, the act of caging animals in worst conditions does harm to them. To keep animals in cages ignores the animals’ needs, which are a natural habitat and the opportunity to grow and develop in their most natural condition. Animal cages in zoos simulate animals’ natural habitat but only to an extent. Zoos can never completely copy the natural seas and terrains that house animals in the wild. Furthermore, growing in captivity deprives animals of a chance to maximize and realize their full potentials. Caging Mali in miserable facilities evoke a much stronger against animal welfare and happiness. Mali was not only deprived of her needs, but she was also subjected to a multitude of discomfort such as an inhospitable home and the sorrow of being alone. Such discomforts would not be forced on Mali if she were in the wild.

The KFC issue is another instance where animal welfare was ignored. Peter Singer also argued that the consumption of animals is wrong when there is any alternative, such as vegetables. It is immoral to eat animals, thus it is especially immoral to raise animals and improve their physical attributes to make better food for human beings. KFC’s questionable methods of raising chickens and “enhancing” them so that they could be ready for human consumption in a short span of time are definitely immoral.

Both of these cases are situations where humans disregard animals only for their own welfare and happiness. These humans are guilty of speciesism which is the bias of one species towards the members of the same species. The concept of utilitarianism deals with the maximizing happiness and minimizing harm. Both happiness and harm are applicable also to conscious beings such as animals. We therefore say that what people did to Mali and to the thousands of chickens produced for KFC is immoral because their actions disregard the happiness of these animals.

References:

http://www.virtualphilippines.net/Panoramas/Manila_Zoo/MaliReport.pdf

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/kfc-is-cruel-to-chickens-says-animal-rights-group-612710.html

Life and Death, Part Three, Chapter 10-Animals, p135

by Timothy Carido and Carlo Sevilla

Last June 2011, President Noynoy Aquino stood firm on his position that the Spratlys is part of the Philippine Territory, thus alarming the Defense Minister of the People’s Republic of China about the possible conflict between the countries regarding territorial rights. United States of America later announced its support to the Philippines in case of an engagement between the two countries.

Not long ago, before Tomas Cloma ‘discovered’ the Freedom Islands (Kalayaan Islands, part of Spratlys) in 1947, the United States gave the Philippines a Commonwealth Constitution thus allowing the country to have the chance to actually take control after the Spanish colonization. However, aside from the help the Americans gave to the country in order to lead our own government, they also made laws that will benefit the American people (an example was the law that gave equal rights to Filipinos and Americans to all natural resources in the Philippines). From the time they first went in our country until this very day, the bond between the Philippines and the US grew stronger thus dubbing them as a “friend.”

According to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, there are three kinds of friendship: friends of utility, friends of pleasure, and genuine friendship. The friends-of-utility is a kind of friendship that usually ends just as fast as how it all began. People are not connected in a deep level thus it will be easy for them to let go when they cease to be useful to one another. An example of this friendship is that of a hospitable person to a foreigner. The next kind of friendship is that of friends-of-pleasure which is often related to young people experiencing fleeting emotions to one another. An example of this friendship is that of teammates, wherein the emotional bond or connection ends if they no longer play together. Finally, the last kind of friendship is that of genuine friends. According to Aristotle, only virtuous people are capable of having genuine friendships. One must wish all the best for the other, as he wishes the best for himself. He shall treat the other like how he treats himself, wanting only the good. By “good”, Aristotle meant that during an examination, a genuine friend will help you review before the exam, not just give you the right answers. A genuine friend will help you to reach eudaimonia, or growth.

Applying Nicomachean Ethics into context, it is clear that the friendship that lies in politics is the advantageous kind since in State affairs; there would always be an underlying interest involved.  Person A may have something to get from person B and it is only through bargain and consensus that such need can be attained. Such relation seemed to be “utility-friendship”, for A engages with B only because A needs something from B. Nonetheless, political friendship for Aristotle would only not only involve interests, but more importantly, the virtue of justice. However, this only applies to an ideal state where every citizen would possess that aim to bring good to the “other”.

The discussants would argue that there is no genuine friendship in politics as it is applied practically. The friendship referred to in those events (i.e. Filipino-American Friendship Day) is not genuine friendship. As to the manner it was used must be delved into another discussion.

July 2011

by Paula Valencia & John Arcenas