The need to need and the need to deserve

In class toady we talked a lot about needs and what exactly makes a need. When I think of needs I automatically think of Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs pyramid.


It's pretty self explanatory. We first need to breath, drink, sleep -- have our physiological needs met. Then we need to feel safe, then loved and so on. The bottom of the pyramid is the most needed and most essential.
I feel like this answers Jake's question, "Can you end the sentence?"

But like I said in class the things we need are a lot of the time shaped by our society and what they tell us we need. Or even a lot of the time we feel that we need the things we are used to having. But no matter what we are accustomed to the mind's appetite always needs more. We are always going to need something. This is just like envy, not to say that you are always going to be envious of something, but if you get it, it will only make you happy for a little while until you occupy your mind on something else.
When it comes to deserving we feel that we deserve the things we need and the things we work for. I certainly don't need or deserve to win the lottery (yet who really does?) but I do deserve good grades because I need to work hard. Yet sometimes we feel that we deserve things that we don't. Just because I work hard, does that necessarily mean I deserve good grades? Probably not, but I think so anyways.
This leads me to my question: Does our pride determine what we feel our needs are and the level of which we feel we deserve?

Responce to Michelle's post: Envy

Michelle asked, "Would you say that envy is a never ending cycle and that it is done unconsciously?"

I'll start by posting the social psychology term in class that I couldn't remember. Counter factual thinking - mentally stimulating what might have been. The bronze is happier than the silver because the bronze's thought process is, "I just made it into the top three;" whereas the silver's thought process is, "I was so close to getting first." You are more upset when your favorite basketball team loses by one point than you are if they got murdered (points wise). You are more upset if your lottery ticket number was one off from the jackpot than if the winning numbers were totally different. This is because the more actual the event the more counter factual thinking. The closer you are to getting something you want and then you do not, the more you think "what if?"
This relates to envy, if you were so close and then fail, you will be more envious to the person who did achieve whatever it is that you desired. A homeless man is not envious of the rich man, he is envious of the other homeless man who found a beat-up pillow. Envy is relative to what we have, and yes, an unconscious emotion. Yet, I do not feel like it is a never-ending-cycle, so that one envious emotion goes away when another starts. You can be envious of two things at once, or not envious of anything.
I also believe that the capacity to feel envy is a predisposition. Some people have natural personalities that make them compare themselves to others more than the average. It also deals with how you were raised, if you were raised to be thankful for what you have, you are a less envious person.
This leads me to my questions: Can it be taught to not be envious?

the seven deadly sins

I have watched the History channel's segment on the Codex Gigas (the devil's bible) a couple of times, and it mentions the history of the seven deadly sins. To the contrary of many people's beliefs the seven deadly sins are not mentioned in the bible. The seven deadly sins were actually once eight deadly sins written by an exiled monk in the 1300's. It wasn't until the 1500's when Pope Gregory changed the eight deadly sins into the seven deadly sins (omitting sadness and changing other slight things) and inducted it into the Christian religion.

The four Cardinal virtues : Temperance, Fortitude, Justice, and prudence, and the three theological virtues: faith, hope and charity helped to form the seven heavenly virtues. The seven heavenly virtues contrast directly with each deadly sin.

Pride-Humility

Gluttony-Temperance

wrath-patience


sloth-diligence


lust-chastity


greed- charity


envy-kindness

Pride is considered the most deadly sin and contrasts with humility. Humility is modesty. Pride includes: arrogance, self-interest, and narcissistic/histrionic traits. A prideful person according to this depiction feels like they are too good to do the dirty work in life. This is considered a sin mostly because a prideful person considers themselves better than everyone else, almost at the level of God. Pride is also known as, "the sin of Lucifer," since Lucifer was so prideful in himself that he thought he could compare to God, resulting in him becoming the ruler of hell.

Gluttony is over eating and it contrasts with the heavenly virtue temperance. Temperance is moderation (notice how I only said it once). It is a sin because eating too much is wasting food and being greedy towards those who don't have as much as you. This relates a lot to the idea of egalitarianistic cultures, an even amount of food distributed to everyone and not the extreme of 300lbs rich people and people the weigh 72lbs dying of famine.

Wrath is anger and contrasts with patience. Patience is not being restless and quickly annoyed when someone bothers you or there is a wait. It is a sin because if we are quick to act and don't think first there can be bad and regrettable consequences.


Sloth is laziness and contrasts with diligence. Diligence is having a good work ethic. It is a sin to not have a good work ethic and to be lazy because you are wasting the life God gave you. Also, by being a diligent worker you are not allowing temptations or other evil thoughts to consume your time.

Lust is sex without love/marriage and contrasts with chastity. Chasity is remaining sexually abstinent. It is a sin because it is being self-indulgent in the temptations of the flesh before committing yourself to that person.

Greed is desiring more than you need and contrasts with charity. Charity is selflessly giving to others what they need. Greed is a sin because it is being selfish and not caring about the needs of others. It resembles gluttony, except greed is more general whereas Gluttony only entails food.


Envy contrasts with kindness. Being kind and happy for others will conceal envy. If I were to pick my own direct contrast with envy I would use satisfaction. Those who are thankful for what they have and are satisfied with who they are/what their status is, and are not envious people.

When you look at all of the seven deadly sins, there is one characteristic that they all share, (with the exception of wrath) and that is selfishness. Like I mentioned in class on Wednesday, before I even started to research, I mentioned how envy is correlated with low levels of empathy and high levels of selfishness. When you are envious -- selfish; greedy--selfish; lustful -- selfish; sloth -- selfish; gluttonous -- selfish; and the worst of them all, prideful --selfish. I find it ironic how pride is considered the most deadly sin and it is the one that contains the most selfishness. Would that make selfishness the most deadly characteristic/emotion?

Re: Michelle's Response to my Meaning of Life for Animals

Michelle asked "what if everyone was a vegetarian?"


I'm not a ecologist, but wouldn't it throw off the natural order of our world if we stopped eating meat? Do you remember in class the other week when we talked about the pig farms and how their waste smells for miles...? Well think if we didn't eat them. There would probably be a lot more pigs...and a lot more pig waste.


What would we do with all of our animals, just keep them as pets? Farmers wouldn't be able to do that because they would have no money from selling them therefore no money to feed them. If everyone was FORCED to be vegetarian, one the other hand, in some twilight zone world of my own, then farmers would be very rich. The meat black market, anyone?


But what do I know, like I said, I'm not an ecologist. I found Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth documentary on google videos

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8847562857479496579&ei=6ZOZS6G6H9DqlAeNxuWXAw&q=inconvenient+truth&hl=en#

as Johnson mentioned on Michelle's blog. He talked a lot about the CO2 levels being correlated with the increase in temperates. Yet, since mammals breathe out carbon dioxide and if we didn't eat meat there would be more animals, wouldn't a decrease in meat eating have a deficient effect global warming?

Maybe I'm wrong, if we let them all out in the wild they may become extinct because they don 't know how to defend for themselves. Pigs and cows have been domesticated for so long, do they still have their natural instincts? If they don't, is it worth saving ourselves to risk their species?

Attention: I would really appreciate it it you all took the two seconds to type, "I will be replying to this post" underneath the post you are replying to. That is what you are suppose to do you know. Thank you. :)

Animal Testing

Animal testing has been happening for decades and has been regulated by (at least for psychology) the IACUC (Institutional Animal Care and Use Commity). Before you start an experiment with rats, you need to send them a proposal saying what you will be experimenting, what you are going to do with them, why you are doing that experiment, and even what temperature the room is going to be. They make you bend over backwards for the safety of those animals, yet, you can buy mouse traps that harm and kill the same type of rats in your house with no problem. Of course many people are not opposed to using rats to try to find a cure for cancer. Yet, what about for material uses, like make-up testing, soap testing, shampoo testing, etc? In order to put something on the market it needs to be proven effective, and testing on humans can be very costly, you have to compensate human participants -- the rats don't need money. So what are your feelings toward animal testing for material things?

The Meaning of Life for Animals

In class on Wednesday we talked a lot about self consciousness and self awareness as it relates to animal's (including humans) mental states and abilities to suffer. Humans have the ability to think about the past, future, and present while other animals are only able to think about the past and now. But I feel as though that is why humans suffer. Sure animals definitly have memories, yet it doesn't effect them like our memories effect us. I'm pretty sure that animals don't have regrets. Thinking of the future is a big factor of human suffering because it brings about worries. Planning can be stressful and we make ourselves go through the pain to get our goals. yet, isn't that the fun of it? The harder the goal the more accomplished you feel when you achieve that goal.

Animals don't have complex goals like us so I feel like that reason alone justifies humans eating them. All cows do is eat grass all day... that's the sad truth. So what is the meaning of their lives? They cannot create a new invention, they cannot think complex thoughts, they cannot benefit society in anyway except for feeding us, so why don't we just accept their contribution to the world and to us? Of course I'm not saying that because their lives have no meaning that we should treat them inhumanely or cage them all their lives. If America all had free-range chickens and cows that would cost a lot of money for the farmers, the grocery stores, and the consumer. It would cost us three times the amount, which of course, causes more complaints. People are always complaining about something.

So my question is what is the meaning of live for animals?

*Note: These are not necessarily any of my opinions, I just enjoy being an ass sometimes.*

Re: EMT's Animals as Pet's (and Food)

In his latest blog, EMT asked: Why is it that, once we consider an animal a pet (a creature whose sole purpose is enslavement by our species for, primarily, our own amusement), that we become uneasy at the thought of using that animal as a source of food?

Amusement? Maybe a fish or a pet rock is for your amusement(or lack thereof), but not mammals such as cats and dogs. It has been shown that people with pet's have less heart problems. Pets can lower your blood pressure, your cholesterol, your triglyceride levels along with other health benefits. Dogs also help children with autism spectrum disorders.

I suppose training your dog to do tricks is for your amusement, but that's not the reason why most pet owners have them. They also provide unconditional love, they don't care if you are weird, if you say the wrong thing, or you didn't pay the cable bill. Pets make you feel less lonely and that social support is one of the reasons that they reduce stress.

So with all of these things that animals do for us why would we eat them? If you eat a steak you are using that cow for food. If you have a pet you are using it, but in a different way. We use pets as comfort, friends, and as Bretticus mentioned, family. Why would you want to eat your friend or family member?