publicpolicyindividual

=__**Public Policy for Individualism**__=

==  There are many aspects of current public policy that are based upon the central idea of individualism (individual's value over its species collective and ecosystem). This article will generally cover individualism from the perspective that certain individuals are more valuable that others as well as?? (humans>animals>insects). Specific areas that this article will concern are centered around: = =
 * 1) the effectiveness of individual //domestic// animals being taken care of in animal shelters over their exposure to the wild/urban areas;
 * 2) how hunting is unacceptable for recreation/sport, though therapeutic hunting may be permitted if it benefits ecosystems and, in effect, other individual animals so that they may prosper (see Varner);
 * 3) the importance of animal rights, and the negative effects  of testing/experimenting on animals, as well as the positive for anthropocentric individualists.

Each section will go in detail on its defined subject by bringing a standpoint of individualism, and the importance of the individual, over its collective species and/or environment. Good - but perhaps also explain a bit various ways one can develop individualist based policies. ie IF one sees ALL biotic individuals as equally moral then what? IF one sees humans as superor then what? If one sees mammals or vertebrates on one level and all other creates subordinate, then what? If one sees all creatures on one level and plants subordinate then what? Then you can situate your views here and explain your "take" on this...

Animal Shelters
Animal shelters that house lost and homeless animals are an important and vital part of our communities The general intention of these shelters is to care for and protect the individual animals until they are either reclaimed by their owners or adopted. As there is often a major problem(see statistics chart from the Humane Society below)  with animal overpopulation, shelters often spay/neuter the animals to help against these problems. Since the animals are all screened for good health, we may have an ethical obligation to adopt one of these animals if one wishes to have a pet. They are in safe and healthier conditions as opposed to the majority of domestic animals who live on the streets.

One of the many issues of individual animals  on the streets as opposed to the individuals being cared for in shelters is the seasonal difficulties presented for the homeless. As quoted by [|AlleyAnimals], " Just as summer’s choking heat will make fast work of bringing down a sick or injured animal, so will winter’s freezing cold. Bitter weather lowers our precision which in turn lowers our potential to succeed in securing an animal who needs help, particularly if the situation requires lengthy and sustained effort. The bitter cold bites at our fingers and penetrates our clothing, but we have a warm car awaiting our return. Homeless animals have no recourse for getting warm; they must search out food and water in the cold, sleep in the cold, find places to hide in the cold. They have no choice but to get through it somehow without relief or die in its grip. "

Although many animals do survive on the streets, the number of those who do not survive is very different to those surviving in homes. Although shelters must still euthanize over a million animals per year, the changes that have been made in just a 30 year period on the side of shelters is extraordinary. In 1973, there were 63 million animals in homes, and 13 million euthanized. In 2007, there are now 140 million animals in homes, and only 3.6 euthanized. **The efforts made by the community and shelters over a thirty year period have gone to not only benefit the individual animals that are being saved, but in effect, their entire collective**. The US Humane Society || http://www.hsus.org/pets/animal_shelters/ http://www.hsus.org/pets/pet_adoption_information/ || 
 * < __//Section References://__
 * < Alley Animals || http://www.alleyanimals.org/faces/faces.html ||

Hunting
There are several different opinions on hunting as far as individualist ideas are concerned. One such argument that supports individualism is brought up by Gary Varner, whom acknowledges the different types on hunting in relation to environmental ethics. These are (as presented in course outline, or textbook pages 98-99): With the ideals of an individualist, acceptable hunting would only be therapeutic (possibly subsistence as it benefits the human individual), but //not// sport hunting. Therapeutic hunting may seem more of a holist perspective than individualist because it benefits the entire species, but it is an effort to benefit its ecosystem that, in effect, allows other individual animals to prosper in their environment. Subsistence hunting may also seem against the protection of individual animals, but it allows human individuals to prosper, and is more of an "anthropocentric-individualist" perspective. This also brings a separate argument of which individual species should be valued over others. Fotr the sake of this article and from the perspective which it is written, Individual Humans are valued more than individuals of other species. Others that fall in line next would be the human's pets (regardless of species), followed by general individual mammals, etc., finally leading to insects at the very bottom of the totem pole (which is why extremities are addressed later in this article).
 * //Therapeutic hunting// – to secure overall welfare of the target species and / or ecosystem.
 * //Subsistence hunting// – to secure food for humans
 * //Sport hunting// – to maintain religious or cultural traditions, reenacting national or evolutionary history, honing certain skills, gaining trophies; less fundamental needs than subsistence hunting

Another philosopher, Tom Regan, also addresses the pros and cons of hunting; leghold traps, in particular. Regan states: "A case in point is the use of the steeljawed leghold trap by commercial trappers still common in the United States."(66) He addresses the position that these are overly malicious and painful towards animals caught in these traps, and more humane ones need to be used. In the perspective of individualism, these types of traps would be unacceptable by any means. In the case of therapeutic or subsistence hunting, any hunting should be done as humanely as possible to keep the animal from suffering. Such devices as these are often seen as cruel an inhumane (although are are some traps that are padded and more acceptable to capture and transfer rather that kill).

In a deeper look at public policy, there are also several arguments for and against hunting. As investigated by [|Doris Lin] (About.com), "The injury rate for hunting is lower than that of some other forms of physical recreation, such as football and bicycling." However, an argument against that, as she also covers, is that "[o]pponents point out that compared to other forms of recreation, hunting injuries are far more likely to be fatalities. Approximately 100 people die in hunting accidents in the United States every year, and unlike other forms of recreation, hunting endangers the entire community, and not just the willing participants." Doris Lin || About.com http://animalrights.about.com/od/wildlife/a/HuntingArgument.htm ||
 * < __//Section References://__
 * < Textbook || See Gary Varner and Tom Regan's respective articles ||

Animal Rights and Effects of Testing/Experimentation
From the perspective of non-anthropocentric individualists, the idea of animals experimentation would be entirely unacceptable. As [|Doris Lin] states on her About.com article on the subject, "Just as we do not experiment on humans who are incapable of consenting to experimentation, we should not experiment  on non-human animals. Non-human animals cannot give informed consent, and the vast majority of experiments using animals are so invasive and injurious, we would never even consider allowing humans to consent to being subjects in such experiments." Any act against individual animals, regardless of benefit, is unacceptable because of the harm it brings to the animal. Acts of public policy have been set up to assist in this matter, most notably the Animal Welfare Act. This act sets minimal requirements for humane treatment and handling of non-human animals in experimentation, but as Doris Lin continues, she says is "very ineffective. For example, the AWA explicitly excludes from protection all rats and mice, which make up approximately 95% of the animals used in laboratories." Although the act of benefiting individual humans is acceptable, the act of harming an individual non-human animal may not be.

Looking at the subject from an anthropocentric-individualist perspective, animal testing is far more acceptable as it potentially benefits the human individual (although may not benefit the non-human animal).<span style="background-color: rgb(0, 255, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> There are several benefits to animal testing, To quote information from the [|MSN Encarta], " Treatments for heart disease provide just one example, including open-heart surgery, in which circulatory functions are temporarily controlled by a heart-lung machine; coronary bypass to improve blood flow to the heart muscle; and valve replacement of a defective heart valve. Techniques and equipment for kidney dialysis were also developed through animal experimentation. More than 30 drugs for treating cancer, as well as anticancer radiation therapies, were first tested on rats and mice. Vaccines for diphtheria, measles, smallpox, and many other previously feared diseases were developed through animal research. Organ transplants, blood transfusions, microsurgery to reattach severed limbs—these and other procedures that save thousands of lives annually—were made possible by work on animals." So many of these have allows millions of human lives to be prolonged. The value of a human individual is often valued (arguably) more favorably than those of any creature as we are the only beings capable of many intellectual activities. It is because of experimenting on other creatures that allows us to continue to appreciate this value, and although it may come at the cost of several lab rats or other animals, it is a risk one of this environmental ethic may be willing to take.<span style="background-color: rgb(0, 255, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> OK, good start here - this is a great opportunity for you to compareyour view here on this issue to that of philosophers in the text - ie, Singer and Regan - they reject the idea that just because we have more intellectual activities we can experiment on animals - well it mgiht depend on what the experiments will lead towards...

Doris Lin || <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">About.com http://animalrights.about.com/od/vivisection/a/VivisectionFAQ.htm || <span style="color: rgb(0, 128, 0);">
 * <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">__//Section References://__
 * < <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">MSN Encarta || <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761595482 ||

Other

 * ===Extreme individualistic policy implications===
 * PETA recently underwent a bit of public scrutiny after President Obama swatted a fly during an interview. After the "incident", PETA released [[image:http://www.ecorazzi.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/obamafly1.jpg width="194" height="121" align="right"]]in a statement, "In a nutshell, our position is this: He isn't the Buddha, he's a human being, and human beings have a long way to go before they think before they act." They suggested that he could have handled the situation better, and sent him "handy fly traps" that capture the bugs (not kill) so that you can set them free later. This brings into question what exactly of individualist policies may be going too far. For article references and a video of the swat, see the links below:
 * <span style="color: rgb(128, 128, 0);">**[]**
 * <span style="color: rgb(128, 128, 0);">**[|Article]**