Relationships increase moral status: for people, animals and even inanimate objects

I took ethics last semester, and it was one of my favorite classes. I really enjoyed the mental exercises and it led me to think about a lot of things in a new way. For the last two weeks of the class, we talked about animal ethics. It was a fascinating topic, and after absorbing several different viewpoints it was hard to decide which I agreed with the most. While I'm still not so sure how we should approach the ethical status of animals, I now understand how we actually do approach this in real life.

This revelation came thanks to reading the feminism-inspired ethics of care arguments. The gist of it is that moral status really comes down to relationships. That we do and should value our family and friends more than strangers, even if the strangers have more to offer to society as a whole. I came out of ethics more or less agreeing with this fully -- when applied to people. When it's applied to animals it makes a lot of sense too.

We have a higher responsibility to animals in our lives. Pets, for instance. We have taken on the responsibility to care for them and most people truly love their pets. So, if someone was cruel to their pet or neglected it, this would be seen as a moral failing. But perhaps if you saw a stray dog on the street, clearly starving and suffering, and left it alone, well... You don't have the same obligation to that animal. It still might not be a good thing to do, but it's not a moral failing whereas allowing your own pet to starve might be.

The theory also explains how we place animals into different categories. For instance, in America we would never eat a dog. In other countries, they do. There's no rational reason, such as that dogs are smarter than food animals or have a greater ability to suffer. Pigs are very intelligent and it's clear that food animals do suffer. But we have been socialized to think of pigs and chickens as food, and dogs and cats as pets-- even family. It's arbitrary, but it makes all the difference. The relationships we have with particular animals and with categories of animals matter.

Now I want to get on to my main idea of this post, and apply an ethics of care mentality to inanimate objects.

Inanimate objects were often used in thought experiments in class to emphasize why and how living things matter. One example: If you hurt a dog, would that a moral failing to the dog itself or to its owner or both? If you broke a chair, is that a moral failing to the chair itself or to the owner? Well, I would say both in the first example, and only to the owner in the second.

But this isn't always the case. Just like we have different categories for animals, we have different categories for inanimate objects.

Breaking an ordinary chair is immoral because of the monetary value lost to the owner of the chair, primarily. Breaking something that is not so ordinary is a bigger loss. The word "priceless" comes to mind. It's hard to put my finger on what exactly the loss is. Is the object itself wronged, as the dog may have been? I don't think that's it.

If you vandalize a famous work of art, I think it is a moral failing, but to whom? The artist is one possible answer, but they might be long dead. The current owner of the painting is another candidate. But I think the most obvious answer is that you are harming everyone. If it's a famous work of art, many people all around the world have enjoyed it and might even have a type of relationship to it.

It seems that everywhere we look in morality, relationships increase something's moral status. A human has intrinsic moral status, but their status is always increased if they have relationships. Think on this: if you have to kill one of two people, might it influence your decision to think that one of them is a hermit with no friends or family and the other is a beloved wife and mother? It would influence mine.

This outlook can also explain why many (myself included) don't see abortion as particularly unethical. Yes, a fetus has some amount of valuable as a pre-human, but if it is unplanned/unwanted it's moral status is not as great. It is not loved, nor does it love anyone: it is not part of any relationships.

For animals, we see the same thing at work. We value pets, and animals who are mothers or babies especially. Relationships are of utmost importance to humans, so - for better or for worse - we use this as a measure of other animals' worth.

The moral worth we give to some inanimate objects isn't intrinsic. A piece of art that is not owned, or loved, made by an artist who is long dead is pretty much worthless. It is not the fact that it is art that gives it value. Even something not created by a human can be seen as art and have a lot of moral worth. For instance, the rock structure that was destroyed by a bunch of Cub Scout leaders. Many people were rightly outraged that they destroyed this beautiful landmark for a thrill. If it were a random boulder, no one would care; but since people know this place and love this place, then it is a moral failing.

I don't know whether or not this kind of moral code is the best one to practice, but it is the one we use most of the time. It's intuitive to humans who are very social creatures. We think about what makes other people happy, and we think about the people who we are close to.

Obviously this has some failings: It makes it all too easy to ignore people who are suffering far away from us (the people who make our clothes, for instance) and animals that we never see until they are on our dinner plate.

However, it doesn't have to be this close-minded. People are able to feel sympathy for strangers, but it all depends on awareness-- consistent awareness. We all know the horrors of sweat shops and factory farms, but we are never confronted with this moral dilemma when we shop. All we see then is a plethora of choices at an affordable price.

To change this, we need to understand how people actually make ethical decisions. And, honestly, appealing to rational Kantian or Utilitarian models isn't going to work. Instead of being told to reduce the suffering, show us the suffering. Humanize it, (or... animalize it?) -- put a face on it. Consistently.  Even if we naturally favor those we are close to, this doesn't mean we lack sympathy for strangers. Emotion motivates people to action a lot better than reason.

Whether or not we should all follow the ethics of care, I think this is the moral code we have. We can work within this system, within our natural morals, to improve the world -- even in a Utilitarian/greater good kind of way.

The Lone Bellow

This Brookyn-based band with a very southern sound is currently my favorite. I almost saw them live this summer (had tickets, in fact), but due to a very misfortunate turn of events, I missed their show. However, I have tickets to see them in October and there is no way in hell I will let history repeat itself.

So, enough about me. Let's talk about The Lone Bellow.

They have two albums. The first, self-titled, The Lone Bellow, is probably the better of the two. The second one, which came out January of this year is called Then Came the Morning, and it's very good as well. Their sound is hard to put squarely into one genre, but they are somewhere between folk and rock and country and soul and blues; I would just say Americana, but that term doesn't mean very much.

There are three core members: lead singer and song-writer, Zach Williams; mandolin player and back-up singer, Kanene Pipkin; lead guitar and back-up singer Brian Elmquist.

As far as folk bands go, the unique thing they bring to the table is entirely their vocals. They have the most amazing harmonies, and honestly, their songs would not be nearly as good without this exact combination of singers. They also (seem to) have a ton of energy live; bands that are even better live than recorded are my favorite.

Here's a couple of their songs, what I'll call the essential Lone Bellow collection, to get you started. Listen to these by clicking on the title.

You Never Need Nobody

Probably their most well known song. Off their first album. If you were wondering what I meant by "soul," this song exemplifies that pretty well.

You Can Be All Kinds of Emotional

This song is a bit more on the country side of their sound, and absolutely gorgeous. Off their first album.

Then Came The Morning

The title track of their second album. We return to the gospel/soul sound here. This song really grew on me the more I listened to it.

Tree To Grow

Off their first album, this is the song that really made me fall in love with this band.

Take My Love

Definitely a different sound for them, away from folk and toward rock. Off their second album, this is my number one unrequited love anthem.

Diners

This song, from their second album, is a lot of fun. Listen to all the lyrics, they're pure gold.

You Don't Love Me Like You Used To

This song, from their first album, also really grew on me and wonderfully features Kanene's voice.

Kingsman: The Secret Service is everything you've been looking for in a spy action flick

I saw some stuff on tumblr about the 2014 movie Kingsman: The Secret Service, and without knowing anything about it other than it starred Colin Firth I watched it. And oh boy, I was in for a fantastic surprise.
 

The whole point of Kingsman is actually stated explicitly in the film, in a conversation between the secret agent Harry Hart (Firth) and the villain, Valentine (played brilliantly by Samuel L. Jackson). Over a... er... happy meal, they discuss spy movies. Harry says that he prefers the older ones; the new ones are too serious for his taste. Valentine agrees.

And that's really where this movie comes from. Don't go in expecting any semblance of a realistic plot or gritty action. This movie is all stylized, over the top action and completely ridiculous violence. And it's so much fun. The infamous church scene is probably the best in the whole movie, and even if you're not one for violence I think you might have some fun with it. I for one couldn't believe my eyes the first time I watched it.

Samuel L. Jackson puts on an amazing performance as the villainous Valentine. I would even go as far as to say he steals the show. It's hard to hate Valentine, really, even though his evil plot is one of the most maniacal I've seen in any movie. His scheme, the main conflict in the movie, is not fully known for most of the film, and yes it's completely ridiculous, but the movie doesn't let you get hung up on details. It's all good fun, and the resolution is just as ridiculous as the problem. (If you've seen the movie... Fireworks.)

Although Kingsman is cheeky and irreverent as all get out, there is still a lot of heart to it. The relationship between Harry and the main character, new recruit Eggsy, is heartwarming and (perhaps a spoiler here) eventually heartbreaking. But we might not have to dwell in pain forever; a sequel is apparently in the works, and I for one can't wait.

If you're looking for a fun movie that's a little different from the usual action flick and will keep you entertained for the whole running time, look no farther than Kingsman.

Parks and Rec: the comedy you've been waiting for

I was never the biggest fan of comedy TV series before Parks and Rec. I watched most of The Office, and I liked it a lot, but at times the humor was too cringe-worthy for me. I can't stand second-hand embarrassment in real life or TV shows, so every Michael Scott scene was like running the gauntlet for me. I never really got into other popular comedies either, such as 30 Rock or The Big Bang Theory. Just not my kind of scene. So I watched drama series upon drama series for a long time.

Then I started watching Parks and Rec with a friend and I was immediately hooked. (I think he started me off in the 2nd or 3rd season which is where it really takes off.) It's such a perfect show. It's hilarious and heartwarming and you will fall in love with every single character. The jokes are many, and subtle-- blink and you'll miss it kind of thing. My favorite thing about it is that it never relies on cheap tactics to get laughs. It is so utterly unoffensive and positive. It's basically the polar opposite of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, which I do enjoy. But while Always Sunny gets its humor in people being awful to each other, Parks relies on passion and compassion.
 

Every main character in the show, and most of the minor recurring characters, are absolute gems. There is not one who you don't care about, not one you don't root for. The cast is wonderfully diverse, built up around one of the strongest female characters of all time: Leslie Knope. Their relationships are wonderful to see as they develop; every time I watch Leslie and Ben's wedding episode I cry. Every single time. Actual tears. It's beautiful.


Finally, the plot of the show is great. As Leslie's career develops, you cannot help but to root for her. And when she and her loyal team succeed, I feel so proud. The first season is definitely the weak link, but season 2 and certainly 3 onward, it is pure gold. The end is good too, so you don't have to prepare yourself for a letdown like with a lot of long-lived shows.

No matter who you are and no matter what kind of show you usually like, please watch Parks and Rec. You won't regret it. It might even change how you feel about the comedy genre.

The Marshall Solar Energy Project and the NIMBY Effect

The Minnesota State Legislature requires 1.5% of power provided by major utilities to be solar energy by 2020. So far 25 sites around the state have been proposed for ground-mounted solar panels (source). One proposed project is the Marshall Solar Energy Project. It would cover 500 acres of what is currently farmland near Marshall, Minnesota. Once in use, it would generate electricity for 15,000 homes; while this is a tiny fraction of the power generated by a single coal plant, this is enough to provide power for all the homes in Marshall and the surrounding towns (source). NextEra, the company that is working on this project, initially tried to build a solar farm near Sioux Falls, but was stymied by local opposition. It seems that the same thing may happen in Marshall, due to concerns that are misinformed, biased and largely unfounded.

Chuck Muller, who lives near the proposed site, has spearheaded the local opposition. His main concern, though, is not related to any technical aspects of solar energy: he is concerned about the view. In an interview with MPR, he said that solar panels don’t mesh with “a quiet country setting” and that what has always been a rural area is now becoming too industrial. He and other neighbors are concerned about the decreased property values from an “unsightly” ground solar farm.

NextEra has been receptive to concerns, suggesting large buffer zones between private property and the solar farm and berms to block the view. Steve Stengel, a spokesperson for NextEra, has also stated that there is no evidence of solar energy projects reducing property values (source). This may not be enough, though.

An online petition started in February against the project has gained over 500 signatures. The petition is titled “Save Our Farms” and it frames the issue in terms of the 500 acres (or less than one square mile) that would no longer be dedicated to farmland if this proposal was passed. The text from the overview of the petition illustrates the concerns:

Approximately 500 acres of some of the best farmland in the state will be replaced with solar panels […]. Ten family farms will live within one mile of the land, where rich and abundant crops grown for decades will be replaced by an inefficient and out of place energy source. We are concerned of the possible health risks being forced upon these families, the value of their properties depleting, the disruption of natural habitat and the loss of county control. You may think this is Minnesota’s way of going green, but it is actually taking away the most important green our state currently grows - Save our farms!

Many of these concerns are unfounded. There is no evidence of health risks or an effect on property values from an isolated solar farm like this. (There is some evidence of health risks for those living in close contact with a PV system, but that is not applicable to this situation.) Solar energy may be less efficient than other energy sources, but the technology needs to be invested in if it is going to be improved. As far as “disruption of natural habitat” goes, the mass agriculture in South West Minnesota has already done that. Farm runoff has left no swimmable or fishable lakes in this region (source). To address “out of place” — people might just have to accept that their aesthetic dislike of solar panels isn’t more important than making the transition to renewable energy.

Farmers are the most influential voice in this region, and their concerns seem to be outweighing the rest of the population. This petition panders to the interests of the farmers and to people’s fear of the unknown. Most interestingly, virtually all of the opposition including Muller state that they are actually in favor of renewable energy — just not here. (Read some of the comments on the petition site if you want to see these sentiments.) This is a textbook manifestation of the “Not In My Backyard” (abbreviated NIMBY) effect. People support all sorts of things in theory (power plants, homeless shelters, airports, public transit) as long as they are out of sight (or smell or earshot). The NIMBY effect can lead to environmental racism, where things that are unpleasant to live near are placed by people who have the least power to oppose.

The NIMBY effect, in my opinion, is unfounded in response to the Marshall Solar Energy  Project. There are really no drawbacks to living within one mile of a solar farm, and NextEra is willing to work with neighbors to make it even more pleasant. Comparatively to the rest of this region, it is a very small loss in agricultural land. Energy companies are required to begin implementing solar energy and they have to start somewhere. If people are as supportive of renewable energy as they claim, they should not create such a fuss when these technologies are actually being put into use.

Best Netflix Documentaries

I love documentaries, and I love Netflix. Here are some of my favorites that I recommend to everyone, in no particular order.

One of the most provocative and compelling documentaries out there. An expose about the American food system, looking at both crops and livestock. Explores the political, economic, environmental and social impacts. It's a pretty bleak picture, but it offers some hope. Leads to great thought and discussion. A must watch for everyone who eats food.

A look at the abuse of orcas kept in captivity, focusing on SeaWorld. This one is pretty depressing. I cried. It sparked quite the anti-SeaWorld movement and for good reason. The abuse of the orcas is terrible enough on its own, but the trainers and keepers have often been injured or killed as well. In a powerful point, the documentary mentions that no orca has ever harmed a person in the wild, despite close contact.

Another must-see. Breathtaking visuals of the receding glaciers, and a really clear, concrete picture of climate change and its impacts. Well worth the years it took to produce. I believe this could convince any climate-change-denier of out bleak reality. However, it's not overly fatalistic and does offer some hope for change.

A holistic and educating look at water issues in the U.S. and worldwide. It looks at the issues of both quantity and quality. Again, there are a lot of concerns about water, but the documentary is mostly hopeful and offers plenty of possibilities on how to deal with problems. One of the best optimistic points is that the concern about "water wars" isn't really a valid concern; more often than not, nations have come together peacefully to solve common problems with water use.

A moving look at food insecurity in the U.S. It focuses on personal stories, and also broadens the issue to national trends, and explores the root of the problem: not a lack of food, but poverty itself. In the U.S. there is usually not hunger from a complete lack of food. Often, it is lack of affordable, nutritious food. Because of this, the documentary focuses on the reasons why healthy food is so much more experience and inaccessible. It doesn't have to be this way; there are ways to improve our system.

This deeply-affecting documentary focuses on childhood obesity in America. It makes fantastic points about how we have a carefully constructed bias against overweight people which makes it very hard for them to get the help they need. It places the blame squarely on food producers for obscuring the facts, and on the government for allowing private interests to have such an impact and subsidizing them so heavily. After I watched this, I was even more aware of what I was putting in my body at every meal time.

This documentary is very well made, and looks at the personal journey of director Tom Shadyac. It asks what happiness is and how we can achieve it. I love the message of human connection. It is perhaps a little cheesy (okay, very cheesy) but it's worth the watch.

This documentary is actually quite terrifying. It looks at an evangelical camp for children, and the families involved. Their daily lives are so incomprehensible to me, a known liberal atheist. However, I don't think the documentary is unfair or tries to demonize them. It has little commentary: just turns on the camera and lets them speak. And it's impossible to look away.

This is one of my dad's favorites. It's a documentary about the life of Shane McConkey, who basically invented extreme trick skiing. It's amazing to watch his evolution. It has a sad ending though, since McConkey died in a skiing accident.

For any TV nerd like me, this is a must-see. It illustrates the evolution of American television, and focuses on today as a new "golden age" of television.