Well I definitely think that Gandhi and Singer might look to ethics in a similar light. Both of them seem to look towards what would be beneficial towards the most rather then the few. They both like to investigate things further than just looking at it quickly. However, Gandhi puts an emphasis on religion where Singer does not. This is definitely an area where I could see them differing on. I feel that Gandhi gets a lot of his information from reading from others and taking into what makes the most rational sense to him. Where Singer takes a more scientific approach to the matter. For example with abortion. Trying to figure out where exactly can pain start in a fetus to determine whether the fetus suffers and therefore has rights at that point. Gandhi too believes in animal rights in the fact that they feel pain and suffering and as to why he is a vegetarian. So strict that when his son was almost dead because of Typhoid Pneumonia and the doctor told him to feed his son eggs and milk, he refused because of his strict belief system. Even though it was the doctor�s feeling that this would save his son. He felt it was more important for his son to keep with the laws then to live. Luckily his son pulled through without it though. Singer as a utilitarian as I already pointed out looks at things through a broader spectrum, he un-personalizes it and looks at how it can affect the whole, he looks at it scientifically and from a much broader perspective. Utilitarianism is that it basically says everyone and anything is only worth what it does in relations to other things and we should all be classified into the relation we have with certain things. Where Gandhi internalizes a lot but does what makes the most common sense. Gandhi also instead of trying to change everyone realizes that you can learn more from the actions of one then from verbalizing your feeling out of anger.
Question 3.
Nietzsche and Gandhi, that is complicated as to compare and contrast I feel. I think they have some things in common and some in distance. First off in distance is attention to religion. Gandhi feels religion is a good thing and has a wonderful relationship with God. He doesn�t feel that Christianity in itself is right but doesn�t disrespect it for that like Nietzsche does. Gandhi and Nietzsche might agree however in their personalization of things. They both believe in becoming better people in themselves. For Nietzsche however, it is a form of evolution into a superman where with Gandhi it is more of trying to make the world a better place from example and out of love and compassion. I see more anger in Nietzsche and I see more love in Gandhi. I see where Nietzsche likes to point out the splinter in people eyes where Gandhi thinks you should remove the plank in your own first. However, like I said they�d both agree on trying to become a better person in the long run. I don�t necessarily feel that Nietzsche would be disgusted by Gandhi he might find some things he doesn�t like but for the most part I feel he would respect Gandhi. As far as God is concerned I feel Gandhi has a more personal role with God then does Nietzsche. Gandhi is trying to help people and to do God�s calling where I feel Nietzsche is himself trying to become a �god� in a sense or at least feels that we can if you change ourselves. This is merely my interpretation of the whole thing.
Question 4.
Why I Do Not Eat Faces by Lang starts out with his story of when he was sixteen about how he felt completely sick to his stomach for all the junk food that he had had in his lifetime and that he decided to be a vegetarian. He discusses that for the most part he felt that the only reason why any of us eat meat is because of what surrounds the food, that what is on it or placed in it for example spices is what causes us to eat it and like it. He talks about when his brother had a bucket of KFC chicken how he ate some of the skin and his brother told him basically that he was a bad vegetarian for eating the skins of dead chickens. He then only ate things that didn�t contain any sort of meat whatsoever. He talks about our CNS our central nervous system and how it responds to pain and how it is weakened. He states that we all have felt pain and that is why we don�t kill and eat other humans because of the fact that we can empathize with that pain. He states that he feels a general reason why we eat animals is because we don�t see them killed and we don�t eat highly complex animals that seems smarter in respect. So then he states �if it is not necessary to eat things with central nervous systems in order to survive (and I am not arguing about exceptional cases here, only those who have options), then why do we persist in eating faces?.� He states that yes we are forced to eat but we are not forced as to what we eat and that we can choose to abstain from meat. So he broadens the topic and uses us as an example stating what if there was a higher life form then us and decided to slaughter and eat us. Give a reason why it is OK. He states that no one would want to eat meat since there is no ultimate reason too other then pleasure.
Singer states that we should give each other equality and also we should give non-human animals the same equality. "our concern for others should not depend on what they are like, or what abilities they possess." He feels that if a being suffers then we must take into consideration that suffering like we would to ourselves. Speciests from what I take Singer to say is that these people take the concerns of their own species only and don't care about anything else. They feel that pain isn't as bad as it is to humans on pigs or mice or cats and etc. Singer also talks about levels of pain and that we must not let levels of pain that would hurt us hurt an animal. He also puts the levels of an animal, a baby, and a disabled mentally person at the same and states that if you can do a test to an animal then you should be willing to do it to a baby. and vice versa. Singer states that the use of animals for food should be due to mandatory conditions like an Eskimo hunting for their only food. Not just for a fun night. Animal flesh is not eaten for health or for survival but merely as a luxury and for taste as Singer says. Singer also talks about the farming and industrialization of farming and how we are making animals suffer. AKA factory farms. He talks about how mothers are separated from their young and how males are castrated and etc. These must cause some form of suffering or pain. Singer also talks about the different studies that have been done that offer no reason or help to society. For instance he tells about the story of the US Army base that uses monkeys to test Radiation sickness. Singer debates the reasoning behind eating animals because they eat each other. He states that animals do this mostly cause they have to in order to survive. Singer argues that animals can be a person since they have a perception of self or self-knowledge. He talks about how the Gardner's used ASL to talk to their chimpanzee and how the chimpanzee caught on and talked back to them logically. The chimp even raised a young chimp and taught him ASL. Also the story of Koko the guerilla. Koko even knew her birthday and what happened. She even asked for a cat to take care of. Singer reiterates his above statements using non-humans as people.