Skip to content

Rebecca Roache’s Posts

Same species, different needs: could ‘genes for’ improve the way we treat animals?

The New
Scientist recently reviewed a variety of studies showing that many traits often supposed unique to humans are in fact shared by
animals. There is evidence that apes, dolphins,
songbirds, elephants, and monkeys share with humans some of the
most important aspects of behaviour associated with speech; killer whales have
distinct cultural groups; great apes and some monkeys have a degree of
understanding of the minds of others, enabling them to deceive; chimpanzees,
gorillas, and crows use tools; and there is suggestive evidence that elephants,
magpies, baboons, whales, and chimpanzees demonstrate emotional behaviour, and
that monkeys and rats are capable of drawing primitive moral distinctions.

Claims that animals have capacities usually thought
unique to humans are controversial, and those who make them are often accused
of anthropomorphising animal behaviour. Plausibly,
there is often more to such accusations than concern for explanatory
parsimony. As humans, we profit from
using animals—for food, research, sport, and so on—in ways that we would not
use other humans, and suggestions that animals are more like humans than we
usually suppose place an unwelcome demand on society to rethink its ethical stance
towards animals. This suggests that a
clear division between humans and other species is important to us in justifying
the discrepancies between what we view as ethical treatment of other humans and
what we view as ethical treatment of non-human animals. Pragmatically speaking, if we
humans wish to retain a privileged moral status, and if our privileged moral
status is at least partly due to our being different to other animals in
certain important (usually biologically-based) respects, then it is in our
interests to resist attempts to draw similarities between humans and other
animals.

Read More »Same species, different needs: could ‘genes for’ improve the way we treat animals?

Are artists, writers, sportsmen, academics, scientists, politicians, and businessmen addicts?

Various news sources
this week, including Fox News and The Guardian, are reporting on an editorial published in this month’s American Journal of Psychiatry. In it, the author, Jerald J. Block, argues
that internet addiction is a real psychological disorder, and that it ought to
be recognised as such in DSM-V, the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is
currently being compiled by the American Psychiatric
Association.

Read More »Are artists, writers, sportsmen, academics, scientists, politicians, and businessmen addicts?

‘Reasonable steps’ to prevent gambling

The BBC
reports today that a compulsive gambler has failed in a High Court bid to make
the bookmaker William Hill repay £2 million of his gambling losses. The gambler, Graham Calvert, claimed that the
bookmaker failed in its ‘duty of care’ by allowing him to continue to place
bets after he had asked the company to close his account. The judge recognised that William Hill failed
to take ‘reasonable steps’ to prevent Calvert from gambling, but said that it
was probable that Calvert would have continued to gamble even had such steps
been taken, meaning that William Hill is not responsible for his losses.

Does a
bookmaker have a duty of care towards its customers? The judge in the case thought not, so let us
pose a far more modest question: ought a bookmaker to take ‘reasonable steps’
to prevent its customers from gambling in certain cases? Answering ‘yes’ to the latter question raises
a number of puzzling questions. For
example, what counts as a reasonable step, and under what circumstances ought
such a step to be taken? Consider the
reasons we might believe that pathological gambling is bad: I suggest that
three important reasons are (1) that it is irrational, in that the gambling
behaviour of pathological gamblers is highly unlikely to help realise their goal
of winning money and is highly likely to frustrate this goal; (2) that
pathological gamblers gamble often, and gamble more money than they can afford
to lose; and (3) because of (1) and (2), pathological gamblers are likely to
suffer large financial losses, which can disrupt other aspects of their lives,
such as their personal relationships, health, and career. 

Read More »‘Reasonable steps’ to prevent gambling

Stairlifts, wheelchairs, and radium-powered toasters

The BBC has
reported plans by the government to
ensure that all new homes are built to accommodate the needs of an ageing
population. Under these plans, new homes
would need to include features such as stairs wide enough to fit a stairlift,
downstairs bathrooms, and room for wheelchairs to turn. The plans are, reportedly, part of a wider
initiative to make entire neighbourhoods more old-people-friendly, through—for
example—building better pavements and kerbs, improving street lighting,
thoughtfully positioning bus stops, and ensuring access to amenities such as
toilets.

The plans
have been welcomed by organisations such as Help the Aged and Age Concern, who
believe that such measures will enable old people to live independently for as
long as possible. A spokesman for Help
the Aged is quoted as saying, ‘We live in an ageing population and our housing
must meet the needs of older people, both now and in the future’.

Read More »Stairlifts, wheelchairs, and radium-powered toasters

Earache for teenagers

The BBC today
reported calls to scrap an acoustic device designed to disperse crowds of
troublesome teenagers. There are 3,500
such ‘Mosquito’ devices in use in England, which work by emitting a
sound normally audible only to those under the age of 25. The sound is turned on for 20 seconds at a
time, and becomes irritating after around 15 seconds, causing those who can
hear it to move away. Typically, the
devices are installed in areas where groups of teenagers gather, such as
shopping precincts.

Read More »Earache for teenagers

I won’t be coming to work today – I’d rather go back to sleep

The BBC
reported yesterday that the inability of
some people to get out of bed in the morning is genetically determined. A study at the University of Zurich
found that individual cells have ‘clocks’, which regulate body processes. The schedule of these clocks determines whether one is better suited to early mornings or late nights.

When a pattern of behaviour is found to be
biologically based, those who exhibit it often find themselves excused from
responsibility for it, particularly if it is correctable. It is not the fault of dyslexics that they
make mistakes reading and spelling, and it is not the fault of Tourette
syndrome sufferers that they make offensive remarks. As a result, medical help is provided for
sufferers of these conditions. Sometimes, however, the view that those who exhibit undesirable,
biologically-determined behaviour should be excused from responsibility for it,
and their behaviour medically corrected, is controversial. For example, many view the widespread
prescription of Ritalin to treat attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD) in children as suspect, in part because it encourages the view that
unruly but normal children are diseased, and therefore excuses those children
and their parents from applying discipline to reign in the offending behaviour.

Read More »I won’t be coming to work today – I’d rather go back to sleep