A scientific critique of Eating our Friends by Roger Scruton

Roger Scruton is a well-known philosopher who has published several controversial books addressing different social and ethical questions. One of these books, A Political Philosophy - Arguments for Conservatism (2006), evaluates modern attitudes about various ethical topics in contemporary society. In Chapter Three, Eating our Friends, Scruton examines if and to what degree animals are subjects for moral consideration. Scruton's conclusions are mainly based on the assumption that animals have fewer abilities than humans.

This essay uses scientific evidence combined with ethical considerations to examine some of these missing abilities and determine if Scruton is right.

`Unlike the other animals with which we come into regular contact, we are self-conscious, our thoughts involve `I´-thoughts, `you´-thoughts and `he, she, we and they´-thoughts´ (Scruton, 2006: 34).

Heifers were showing behavior of excitement and increased heart-rate when they learned to solve a new task. They were aware of their success (Hagen and Broom, 2004).

An essential part of consciousness is the quality of self-recognition.

A study placed young pigs in a pen with a mirror and observed the pigs’ movements as they looked at their images. After 5 hours, the scientist placed a familiar food bowl behind a solid barrier. The food bowl was only viewable in the mirrors. `Seven out of eight pigs found the food bowl in a mean of 23 seconds by going away from the mirror and around the barrier… Each pig must have observed features of its surroundings, remembered these and its actions, deduced relationships among observed and remembered features, and acted accordingly´ (Broom, Sena, and Moynihan, 2009:1).

This, too, is interpretable as demonstrating self-awareness. To get their food, the animals must have understood the spatial relationship between the mirror image, their bodies, and the hidden menu. Pigs are also able to learn their names and to distinguish this name when brought together with unfamiliar pigs (Düpjan, 2012).

The above examples are just a few of many studies on animal self-awareness. But they clearly show that animals have an idea about themselves.

`…during social play, many animals engage in self-handicapping and role-reversals, two behavior patterns that are often used to make inferences about intentionality (and consciousness and self-consciousness)´ (Bekoff, 2004:10).

Pigs can copy the behavior of other pigs, to get something like a food reward and subordinate pigs are aware that dominant pigs could rub them their food. So they wait till they are not seen by a dominant individual (Held et al., 2000; 2002). Pigs have also been shown to be able to control their environment. They can control the stable temperature if provided with appropriate devices. Engaging in this context was that the pigs who were not taught how to use these devices realized that other pigs could. These pigs were prodding the other pigs to switch the heaters on or off (Curtis, 1983; Düpjan, 2012).

Sheep can recognize human faces in photographs. They are also able to distinguish a familiar face from an unfamiliar one. The authors concluded that sheep have facial recognition abilities on par with those of humans and other primates (Knolle et al., 2017). Sheep also prefer the faces of conspecifics to others and the faces of familiar sheep to unfamiliar sheep (da Costa et al., 2004).

These research findings show the animals’ abilities to think about others and their actions and determine the effects those actions might have on themselves. They also demonstrate an animal’s ability to think about the near future, such as a more comfortable stable temperature or being able to eat undisturbed. In the real world, it is quite hard to support the concept that an individual animal has no self-awareness. Animals interact with the outside world; they have many forms of different social interactions (Clayton et al., 2001). These abilities are required for animals to place themselves in the right position in a social group. Animals hunt together; they fight to get a better place in the hierarchy; they avoid stronger individuals and form relationships with other members of their group (Broom, 2014). To be able to do all this, they must have the cognitive abilities that Scruton denies.

`Our thoughts and feelings range over the actual and the possible, the probable and the necessary, the past and the future, what is and what might have been, what will be and what ought to be´ (Scruton, 2006:48).

Cows expecting a period without food will eat more before it happens, and pigs who enter a room containing potentially aggressive individuals will move in ways intended to minimize the likelihood of an attack. These examples demonstrate that animals understand the concept of the future; they know what could happen and show that they use this knowledge to alter their behaviors. Almost everyone who has visited a zoo has noticed that animals get used to specific schedules. They might wait at the gates around feeding time or when it is nearly time for the zoo to close. Farm animals are similarly aware of time.

Pigs change their behavior in the hour before feeding time, and cattle have been observed responding differently if their feed gates do not work like usual. A research project trained rats by always giving them a specific reward upon finishing a task. When this reward system suddenly ceased, they reacted differently than the control group, which had not been trained to expect a specific outcome (Broom, 2014). This result demonstrates that rats can acquire an idea of what might be happening.

In addition to observing behavior, responses can be measured using internal body indicators. Body temperatures increase when an adrenal reaction occurs. This is generally associated with the provision of more energy when faced with an unexpected event. Hens fearing a problem show a higher comb temperature than calm chickens. Conversely, hens anticipating a palatable reward show a drop-in comb temperature (Moe et al., 2012).

These examples all show a simple form of future thinking. But there are also more complex examples such as animals who hide food in the ground to prepare for the upcoming winter (Clayton and Dickinson, 1998; Raby et al., 2007; Wonderopolis, 2012). Chimpanzees sometimes have wars to get more or better territory in terms of conditions like increased food sources. This is a far more sophisticated understanding of the future. It shows acceptance of the risks of injuries or death, weighing this outcome against the benefits which could be gained. In these wars against other chimpanzee groups, the animals' attack at specific times in groups (Tzabar, 2015). This shows high levels of organization and communication.

Cows who had rough veterinary treatment in a crush were often unwilling to enter it later (Broom, 2014). Similarly, Rushen (1986) found that sheep which had been roughly or painfully treated at the end of a race became more difficult to manage. This demonstrates why animals’ experiences with stock people are so critical, as these practices can cause alterations in farm animal behavior (Coleman et al., 1998).

Without possessing some memory skills and an ability to think about the past, no learning process would be possible. Teaching young animals through examples set by their parents requires these skills and is present everywhere in nature. Cheetahs show their adolescents how to hunt; African meerkats teach their offspring how to handle dangerous prey such as scorpions (Langley, 2016). Animals that hide food for the winter can find it after months have passed (Clayton and Dickinson, 1998; Raby et al., 2007; Wonderopolis, 2012). These behaviors show the ability to remember the past and to plan for the future.

`Because of language, and the intellectual structure language makes available, we do not live, like other animals, in a `world of perception,´ to use Schopenhauer´s phrase´ (Scruton, 2006:48).

Animals communicate with each other in many ways, including visual, auditory, chemical, and tactile methods. They inform others about essential topics like food and predators. Honeybees dance to inform other bees about the locations and qualities of food sources (Dornhaus and Chittka, 2004). Also, cattle do not show pain as demonstrating weakness may attract predators (King, 2018). Therefore, some animals know that other creatures may be aware of their appearance. Animals can express feelings like joy, sadness, or aggressiveness by vocalizing. After living with humans, animals are often able to understand human words, such as a dog who knows what happens when he hears the word ‘food.’ Apes have been able to learn and communicate through sign language (Main, 2018). Humpback whales create complex songs that contain information and emotions. They develop these songs over time and copy songs from other individuals (Baier, 2019).

`The attention to language acquisition as a means of communication reflects only a human interest…Although this may be physically less complex than a human environment with all kinds of gadgets and people speaking to you all the time, the social environment with many other animals all around and interacting with you is equally complex, but complex in a different way´ (Manning and Dawkins, 2012:287).

Nevertheless, even if animals are not able to communicate intellectually the way humans do, one should evaluate the importance of this shortcoming. Do animals need to perform the same functions? Is this level of communication crucial? Humans might spend much of the day talking, but how much of their communication is so valuable that it justifies their right to live while denying it to animals who communicate on a more fundamental level?

There is a lot we do not know or completely understand yet. However, a belief that all animals live solely in a world of perception does not seem supported by the evidence cited above.

`Unlike the animals, we have moral, aesthetic and religious experience…; we laugh, sing and grieve; are indignant, approving and dismayed´ (Scruton, 2006:49).

Rhesus monkeys did not take food when they knew that by doing so, they subjected another monkey to an electric shock. Rats restrained themselves when they knew their action would take pain to another individual. Diana monkeys helped older females when they were not able to learn a task to get food and elephants show concerns for other by protecting injured individuals and touching their injuries (Church, 1959; Wechlin et al., 1964; Markowitz, 1982; Poole, 1998). Preston and de Waal (2002) argue that empathy is more widespread among animals than it has been recognized. Putting myself at a disadvantage by not hurting others or protecting them is a moral act.

Especially when it comes to sexual attraction, some animals use much energy for aesthetic features. Most of the time, this is done to attract females. These females show an aesthetic sense (Enquist and Arak, 1993). ` According to recent research, however, some aesthetic preferences in animals, for instance, the preference for regular shapes, refer rather to order and hence to cognitive, not sexual interest. The context of their origin is environmental, and the preferences are concerned with typical properties of the animals' habitat' (Welsch, 2004:16).

When it comes to religion, this construct is anthropogenic. There are many different religions in the world and a growing number of unreligious people. Religion is a part of human culture, and there is no point in arguing that unreligious beings have less of a right to be ethically considered. Besides the fact that religion is not only a positive attribute, as it also creates wars and terroristic activities.

To claim that the ability to laugh is essential, is in the same way pointless, as it is for religion. Laughing is a way how humans express joy. A way to examine if an animal experiences joy is possible through species-specific behavior observation or by measuring chemical parameters. Rats enjoy being tickled and show an increase in dopamine when engaging in activities like playing (Siviy, 1998; Panksepp, 1998, 2000). `… there is no doubt that animals enjoy playing. Studies of the chemistry of play support the claim that play is fun´ (Bekoff, 2004:11).

The ability to sing is again entirely pointless in the context of the worth of a life. Many humans choose not to sing for various reasons, and some animals are able to sing. An obvious example are birds, but there are also other famous singers in the animal kingdom like whales.

It is known that many species express grieve when losing someone close to them (King, 2013). Everybody who had two or more companion animals will probably have observed something like grieve when one of them died. Most famous is grieving behavior in elephants and chimpanzees. However, it can also be found in animals that are regularly on western plates. Barbara King describes in her book How Animals Grieve the story of two chickens. One hen was old and nearly blind, and a younger collected food for her and helped her to settle into the nest. Then the old hen died. The young one stopped eating and died within two weeks.

The rest of Scruton's argument can be summarized in the claim that animals have no deeper feelings. This essay should already have provided enough information to doubt this. We know that especially mammals have the same neurological structure and chemicals as humans. `… this does not necessarily mean animals share our feelings, but careful observation of individuals during social encounters suggests that at least some of them do. While their feelings are not necessarily identical to ours, this is of little or no concern because it is unlikely that they should be the same as ours' (Bekoff, 2004:9).

Conclusion

The arguments made by Robert Scruton assume that animals are not as intelligent as humans. He believed that they have lower expectations of life and are much simpler beings, therefore, have less overall value.

However, intelligence is subjective. Like Einstein said: `If you judge a fish on their ability to climb a tree, they will spend their whole life believing that they are stupid. ´

The intelligence level of humans can be questioned when considering how quickly they are destroying their planet. Humans are aware of the destruction caused by their consumption levels and how their actions impact the earth and its inhabitants. They are destroying and polluting the air, the oceans, and the rainforests even though they know that all these essential ecosystems are critical to their survival. Despite all their technological advancements, the lifestyle they have created have had an immensely negative influence on the planet. Maybe it would be better for humans to follow the examples set by animals, living in smaller ranges. So, one might question how successful the evolution of humanity has been. Humans are on this planet for a short time and destroying it at massive speed. How intelligent is this?

In addition to questions raised about the definition of intelligence, it is essential to explore the ethical values behind Scruton's thinking.

We do not place values on human lives based on intelligence, and not all human beings have a meaningful intellectual life. Besides, people have a range of IQ scores. Children, mentally disabled people, and some older people might not have very high intelligence or ability levels, which Scruton uses as arguments for the right to live. `To this, I would respond that we do this because the human form is, for us, the outward sign and symbol of the moral life…' (Scruton, 2006:50/51). This essay proves that it cannot be said that animals, in general, lack morality.

Humans tend to take responsibility for the weaker members of our species, such as children. We protect them and provide them with the things they are unable to furnish for themselves. Why not use this compassion to lead our moral values?

` Our anthropocentric view of other animals, in which humans are so taken with themselves, is far too narrow. The worlds and lives of other animals are not identical to those of humans and may vary from species-to-species and even within species´ (Bekoff, 2004:8).

Word count: 2630 words

References

Baier, T. (2019) Liedermacher der Meere [The song makers of the ocean]. Available at: https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/wale-gesang-funktion-1.4310682-0. [Accessed 28 November 2019].

Bekoff, M. (2004) Wild Justice and Fair Play: Cooperation, Forgiveness, and Morality in Animals. Biology and Philosophy, 19, (4), 489-520.

Broom, D.M., Sena, H. and Moynhian, K.L. (2009) Pigs learn what a mirror image represents and use it to obtain information. Animal Behavior, 78, (5), 1037-1041.

Broom, D.M. (2014) Sentience and Animal Welfare. Cambridge: CABI Publishing.

Church F. (1959) Emotional reactions of rats to the pain of others. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 52, 132–134.

Clayton, N.S. and Dickinson, A. (1998) Episodic-like memory during cache recovery by scrub jays. Nature, 395, 272-274.

Clayton, N.S., Griffiths, D.P., Emery, N.J. and Dickinson, A. (2001) Elements of episodic–like memory in animals. The Royal Society Publishing, 356, (1413).

Coleman, G.J., Hemsworth, P.H. and Hay, M. (1998) Predicting stockperson behaviour towards pigs from attitudinal and job-related variables and empathy. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 58, (1-2), 63-75.

Curtis, S. E. (1983) Environmental Management in Agriculture. Iowa: Iowa State University.

da Costa, A. P., Leigh A. E., Man, M.-S., and Kendrick, K. M. (2004) Face pictures reduce behavioural, autonomic, endocrine and neural indices of stress and fear in sheep. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 271, (1552), 2077–2084.

Dornhaus, A. and Chittka, L. (2004) Why do honey bees dance? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 55, 395-401.

Düpjan, S. (2012) Das Schwein weiß um sein Ich [The pig knows about itself]. Available at: https://www.zeit.de/wissen/umwelt/2012-05/unterschaetztes-tier-schwein. [Accessed 27 November 2019].

Enquist, M. and Arak, A. (1993) Selection of exaggerated male traits by female aesthetic senses. Nature, 361, 446-448.

Hagen, K. and Broom, D.M. (2004) Emotional reactions to learning in cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 85, 203-213.

Held, S., Mendl, M., Devereux, C. and Byrne, R.W. (2000) Social tactics of pigs in a competitive foraging task: the ‘informed forager’ paradigm. Animal Behavior, 59, 569–576.

Held, S., Mendl, M., Laughlin, K. and Byrne R.W. (2002) Cognition studies with pigs: livestock cognition and its implication for production. Journal of Animal Science, 80, E10–E17.

King, B.J. (2013) How Animals Grieve. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

King, L. (2018) Reducing pain and stress becoming high priority in the cattle industry. Available at: https://www.tsln.com/news/reducing-pain-and-stress-becoming-high-priority-in-the-cattle-industry/. [Accessed 28 November 2019].

Knolle, F., Goncalves, R. P. and Morton, A. J. (2017) Sheep recognize familiar and unfamiliar human faces from two-dimensional images. Royal Society Open Science, 4, 171228.

Langley, L. (2016) Schooled: Animals That Teach Their Young. Available at: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/05/160507-animals-teaching-parents-science-meerkats/. [Accessed 28 November 2019].

Main, D. (2018) Why Koko the Gorilla Mattered. Available at: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/06/gorillas-koko-sign-language-culture-animals/. [Accessed 28 November 2019].

Manning, A and Dawkins, M.S. (2012) An Introduction to Animal Behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Markowitz H. (1982) Behavioral Enrichment in the Zoo. New York: Van Reinhold Company.

Moe, R.O., Stubsjøen, S.M., Bohlin, J., Flø, A. and Bakken, M. (2012) Peripheral temperature drop in response to anticipation and consumption of a signaled palatable reward in laying hens (Gallus domesticus). Physiology and Behavior, 106, (4), 527-533.

Panksepp, J. (1998) Affective Neuroscience. New York: Oxford University Press.

Panksepp, J. (2000) The rat will play. In: Bekoff, M. (ed.) The Smile of a Dolphin: Remarkable Accounts of Animal Emotions. New York: Random House/Discovery Books, 146–147.

Poole J. (1998) An exploration of a commonality between ourselves and elephants. Etica Animali, 9, (98), 85–110.

Preston, S. D. and de Waal, F. B. M. (2002) The communication of emotions and the possibility of empathy in animals. In: Altruistic love: Science, philosophy, and religion in dialogue. Oxford: Oxford Press, 1-41.

Raby, C.R., Alexis, D.M., Dickinson, A. and Clayton, N.S. (2007) Planning for the future by western scrub-jays. Nature, 445, 919-921.

Rushen, J. (1986) Aversion of sheep to electro-immobilization and physical restraint. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 15, (4), 315-324.

Scruton, R. (2006) Eating our Friends. In: A political Philosophy- Arguments for Conservatism. London: Bloomsbury Continuum, 47-63.

Siviy, S. (1998) Neurobiological substrates of play behavior: Glimpses into the structure and function of mammalian playfulness. In: Bekoff, M. and Byers, J.A. (eds) Animal Play: Evolutionary, Comparative, and Ecological Perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press, 221–242.

Tzabar, R. (2015) Do chimpanzee wars prove that violence is innate? Available at: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150811-do-animals-fight-wars. [Accessed 28 November 2019].

Wechlin, S., Masserman, J.H. and Terris, W. Jr. (1964) Shock to a conspecific as an aversive stimulus. Psychonomic Science, 1, 17–18.

Welsch, W. (2004) Animal Aesthetics. Contemporary Aesthetics, 2, 1-31.

Wonderopolis (2012) What Do Animals Squirrel Away for Winter? Available at: https://www.wonderopolis.org/wonder/what-do-animals-squirrel-away-for-winter. [Accessed 28 November 2019].