Ethical Consideration of Animals
- Dec 12, 2018
- 6 min read
Introduction
‘The moral status of animals is, that they are just products…they are separated from moral society’ (Cavalieri 2002: 56).
This quote is a fitting abstract of what was the common sense regarding the rights of animals for a long time and it is still visible to this day. So, it says in the first paragraph of the German animal protection law: ‘Nobody is allowed to hurt, bring pain or suffer to an animal, without a reasonable cause’ (Tierschutzgesetz § 1). Even if this sentence indicates, that animals are fellow creatures, whose lives and welfare have to be protected, it builds up a hierarchy, which puts humans above non-human animals. Humans have the right to hurt or bring suffering to an animal if they can provide a reasonable cause. This it is left up to humans, to decide, when it is acceptable to let a non-human animal suffer. It seems to be pretty complicated to define, whether there is a reasonable cause or not. The fact that humans have this right in modern society, and where this right comes from, would be considered as the base for movements like the animal right movement.
The analysis of the human- non-human animal relationship and the question, if animals have rights, goes back to antiquity. The answer to this question involves a few factors, while the main factor is and was, the position humans have in comparison to non-human animals. In history, most of the time, humans were put highly above non-human animals. This was mainly because of two reasons, which have been remarkably constant for centuries — first, the God-likeness of humans and their ability to be reasonable.
This essay will take a closer look at the development of these concepts and argue if non-human animals should be ethically considered.
History
The idea of humans as the only beings with sense is still part of modern thought. Alkmaion first mentioned this thesis in the antiquity (Flury 1999). Moreover, it was taken even further through the tenet of transmigration from Orphics and Pythagoras. of the basis of their thinking was that there is a dualism between body and soul (Breßler 1997). Humans are in contrast to non-human animals mainly through the soul.
The idea of this dualism got very popular through Platon, who adapted this thesis. Platon also separated the soul into three parts. The brave one, the appetitive one and the reasonable one. For Platon, humans were mainly a reasonable part of the soul and were able to dominate the other parts and their bodies. If a person can do so, this human being becomes god-like. If not, the human becomes a non-human animal (Flury 1999). For Platon, humans, and nature are quite distanced. Humans should dominate nature. The non-human animal misses the reasonable part of the soul and is therefore not included in this ethical consideration. Humans are allowed to dominate them and treat them; however, they please.
Aristoteles had an entirely different position as for him, humans were embedded in nature, and the differences between humans and non-human animals were mostly gradual (Flury 1999). However, Aristoteles describes nature as a hierarchy, where the creatures with less sagacity exist to be used by the ones with more sagacity (Singer 1988).
Indifference to Platon, Aristoteles gives non-human animals desires like food, reproduction and the ability to feel and to have imaginations. However, he also only gives humans the ability to have reason and therefore have a mind. Similar to Platon, Aristoteles thinks of the human soul as immortal (Flury 1999).
Aristoteles describes nature as a harsh place where the strongest has the right to use this natural harshness against other beings (Teutsch 1991). In Aristoteles’ case, not only non-human animals are meant by this, but he also means ‘barbarian tribes’ (Singer 1988).
The idea that non-human animals have no reason was very unquestioned for a long time, mainly in connection with the concepts that they do not have language and consciousness, which are often seen as necessary to be able to have the reason.
Two famous representatives of this opinion were Descartes and Kant, who brought this idea into modern moral philosophy.
Darwin
The […] doctrine of the creation and the God-likeness, which is only awarded to humans, in connection with the (over-) valuation of language and reason […]’ (Wolf 2005: 22) props the assumption of the ostensible superiority of human beings. This thesis is the basis for the idea that only humans deserve ethical treatment.
Since Darwin’s theory of evolution is biologically proven, then the difference between humans and non-human animals is not categorical (Cavalieri 2002).
The Darwinism had only a small influence on the development of ethics. Darwin considered that humans do not have to be interpreted differently than (other) animals (Flury 1999).
Darwin explains the reason as a natural rather than a supernatural characteristic, which developed in the history of human evolution. It is not the foundation of human beings, and it is not an ability which only human beings possess. Darwin states that the reason and mental abilities are strongest in human beings, but non-human animals are capable of feeling pain, fear, boredom and therefore have consciousness and reason. Human beings are only a temporary stage in the process of development, not a God-like result (Flury 1999).
Modern Times
In modern times, there is a movement that aims to provide non-human animals with rights and to be concerned about their welfare. Researchers taught chimpanzees to use sign language, which are all steps to show that there is not such a big difference between humans and non-human animals.Also, the position of non-human animals that they have no feelings or are not able to think at all is now less considered.Today, there are new perspectives on non-human animals with different representatives. A very well-known person is Peter Singer (Wolf 2005). Bentham is the founder of utilitarianism, which called for a radical change of perspective regarding moral philosophy in the 19th century. He claims that it is not morally relevant; if a being can think or is capable of language, it is essential if it can feel. The capability to feel exists in both humans and non-human animals. Therefore, non-human animals are seen as individuals, and not just a product. They have the right for freedom and development of individuality. This implicates that it is not right, to treat non-human animals with cruelty. Singer claims that just like we treat a different kind of humans the same, we also need to treat non-human animals the same. To avoid speciesism, humans have to be aware of their interests, even if they are not congruent with the interests of humans. For Singer, all creatures which are capable of feeling happiness and suffering are the same. The level of moral consideration depends on the level of ability to have these feelings. Tom Regan has a slightly different argumentation. In his book “The Case for Animal Rights” he attributes non-human animals with self-esteem. For Regan, it is, similar to Singer, necessary, if a being can feel and if so, they have all the same rights.
Conclusion
The argumentation that only human beings are capable of reason is problematic, since this thesis tries to discuss a category for all human beings, while there are human beings who lack reason. For example, moronic people who do not deserve to be treated ethically. On the other hand, there are these non-human animals, which show clear signs of reason.
It seems to be very random to claim that reason is connected to the ability of language or is necessary in order to have a mind. Non-human animals use language to communicate, but it is in a way that is beyond the understanding of humans. It is out of the question that non-human animals can suffer and feel fear.
If humans are such moral beings, this alone should be enough, to not harm them.
I would not say, that humans have the highest morality, but for sure, they are the cruelest species on earth. The way we treat non-human animals is not acceptable. In my opinion Organizations like ‘Anonymous for the Voiceless’ and ‘The Save Movement’ are the most powerful concepts at the moment. Both concepts take the victims out of the hidden and confront humans on an emotional level regarding the industry they are supporting every day. Even though many people pass by, on a normal 3 hour ‘Cube of Truth’ we have around one hundred talks with meat eating people and many of them are touched by the pictures and at least feel sorry. So, it seems to be broadly excepted, that non-human animals are capable of feelings and suffering. Otherwise, we would not feel sorry. Now it is time to take action based on the acquired knowledge. Consumers have the most significant power.
“When the suffering of another creature causes you to feel pain, do not submit to the initial desire to flee from the suffering one, but on the contrary, come closer, as close as you can to him who suffers, and try to help him.” – Leo Tolstoy
Word count: 1524 words
References
Breßler, H. (1997). Ethische Probleme der Mensch-Tier-Beziehung. Eine Untersuchung philosophischer Positionen des 20. Jahrhunderts zum Tierschutz. Frankfurt am Main. Germany. Peter Lang.
Cavalieri, P. (2002). Die Frage nach den Tieren. Für eine erweiterte Theorie der Menschenrechte. Erlangen. Germany. Harald Fischer.
Flury, A. (1999). Der moralische Status der Tiere. Henry Salt, Peter Singer und Tom Regan. München. Germany. Karl Alber.
Singer, P. (1988). Verteidigt die Tiere. Überlegungen für eine neue Menschlichkeit. Frankfurt am Main/Berlin. Germany. Neff.
Teutsch, G. M. (1991). Tierversuche und Tierschutz. München. Germany. C.H. Beck.
Wolf, U. (1990). Das Tier in der Moral. Frankfurt am Main. Germany. Klostermann.
Comments