Value of Human and Nonhuman Beings - Essay Example

? Who are we to say that the suffering of a human being is more terrible than the suffering of a non-human being, or that it matters more? Introduction Sufferings have been continuing hand-in-hand with human society since long past which has, however, to a certain extent relaxed in the modern social order. On the other hand, the nonhumans are still observed to undergo tremendous suffering even though various measures have been taken to mitigate their pain. In this respect, at many instances, human society has been noted to raise voices on behalf of the nonhumans to reduce the burden of their ill-fate of being incapable to communicate. In this regards, Goodall (1993) narrated various instances illustrating the sufferings of both humans and nonhumans targeting on the role played by humans as protestors, when the human society itself is suffering by almost a similar degree. He even debates on the significance of such arguments or rather protests made by humans stating the sufferings of non-humans to be greater. It is in this context that the sufferings of human and nonhuman beings have emerged as a subject of great dispute suggesting that both should be provided with certain degree of prominence. Although unnecessary suffering of nonhumans is brutal, sufferings of human beings can also be proved as similarly terrible (Goodall, 1993, pp. 10-18). This paper describes the significances of suffering of nonhuman beings and human beings from different perspectives based on the statement of Goodall (1993) that “Who are we to say that the suffering of a human being is more terrible than the suffering of a nonhuman being, or that it matters more?” (pp. 15). The objective of the paper is to understand the viewpoints of both types of sufferings and develop a rational understanding towards the issue. Discussion There is rising awareness among the human society about abuse of nonhuman beings in zoos, forests, households and even circuses. There is also improved legislation in numerous nations to protect the nonhumans in the natural habitat. This motivates the humans to usually spend a considerable amount of time, energy and money for the well-being of nonhuman beings. However, it is to be noted that in every corner of the world, human beings are identified to be suffering due to several reasons such as hunger and lack of residential facilities among other causes. There are also circumstances of suffering among humans with respect to being tortured by the police and other powerful status holders. At times, it has also been observed that the children are intentionally distorted after destroying their body limbs (such as eyes, hands or legs) in order to make them begging. Besides, humans were also sold in return of money or being forced to adopt prostitution and other unkind living styles. Thus, no matter how people raise voices against suffering of nonhuman beings, it cannot be misled by the fact that human beings also suffer from same misery compared to the nonhumans (Goodall, 1993, pp. 10-18). Value of Human and Nonhuman Beings There is increasing concern among people about the value of human as well as nonhuman beings. Generally, human beings attempt to increase cognizance about sufferings of nonhumans who are raised in firms, zoos, laboratories or in circuses developing legislation in order to protect them. However, they delude themselves by believing that human also suffer similarly in comparison with nonhumans (Goodall, 1993, pp. 10-18). Based on this particular thought, it can be argued that in recent phenomenon, an increasing importance have been rendered towards protecting the genre of nonhuman species treating the humans to be the superior most and certainly the liable one to take the plunge. The increasing rate of environment protection awareness can also be identified as a rudiment towards such notions rather than focusing on their sufferings. But, does that mean values of nonhumans are more than the humans? It is true that nonhumans are imprisoned in zoos, and exploited for public entertainment. They are enslaved and often tortured mentally as well as physically in laboratories for the improvement of science. However, these kinds of exploitations are often overlooked by the policy makers, presuming that they are being utilized for the purpose of human wellbeing (Goodall, 1993, pp. 10-18). Based on this manifestation, the role of humans to define the severity of nonhuman sufferings can be argued, which in the modern society, have been set on the premises of human interests rather than the degree of pain felt by the tortured living being. Yet, the sufferings of humans are also not much different than nonhumans. Humans have also passed the era of slavery where they were treated with almost to the similar value of the nonhumans. In present days, there are still numerous of social unfairness and mistreatments practiced on human beings who are perceived to be weaker, but unlike nonhumans, human sufferings are not publicly overlooked by the policy makers and judged on the premises of the interests or benefits obtained but rather on the basis of the degree of ruthlessness of the torturer (Goodall, 1993, pp. 10-18). This again apparently defines that human society has repeatedly provided greater value to human sufferings rather than to that of the nonhumans which contradicts the justness of human beings in arguing whether nonhuman sufferings are more severe than humans. Nonhuman Beings as Objects Human beings often treat animals as objects despite several legislations which are developed for protecting them. It is in this regards that respecting such creatures as living beings and in order to take the sufferings of animals seriously, they should not be treated as objects. However, from an in-depth point of view, a significant difference can be identified between what human state about animals’ treatment and how they really treat them. A few sociologists believe that both humans and nonhumans have the equal right to live a non-suffering life. Hence, it is immoral to exterminate nonhumans only because of making coats or shooting for games. The nonhumans also must be secured from acts of brutality even when they are used for developing medicines for the purpose of longevity of human lives. The data from United States Department of Agriculture depicts that human kill, on an average, above 8 billion animals per annum for food. Furthermore, the report also attributes that this figure is minor in comparison to the death figure of animals worldwide. They are transported to distant locations in overcrowded situations, within dirty containers and ultimately killed for satisfying human requirements. Furthermore, humans kill billions of fishes and other sea creatures every day. They catch them with fishhook and leave for suffering in the nets. With respect to wild animals, at times humans also hunt them not because of recreational purposes. The wounded animals often experience a slow death for long hours and sometimes for long days due to loss of immense amount of blood or due to other severe damages (Francione, 2009, pp. 108-142). Human Beings as Objects In ancient times, human beings were treated as slaves by people who were assumed to be superior in terms of their social status. The salves acted as property to their masters in the ancient society. The reaction towards slavery of humans can provide significant approach for studying slavery among nonhumans. The human slaves during that period of time had no right to live freely, i.e. they could not decide upon the utilisation of labours, they could not possess any assets, they were unable to be a witness in the court, and even they had no power as parents where their children were possessions of the owners. The sufferings of human slaves in ancient periods, is similar with the suffering of animals in present times, though the treatment differs, as the animals can receive loving treatment from owners or can be used for increasing the revenue by farmers. Unlike slaves in traditional time, the animals have suffered loss of control on their life. The major strength, the slaves had with respect to animals, is the power of rebellion. In case of animal they are unable to rebel for themselves which is often perceived to be sole reason that they can only be controlled by humans (Cavalieri & Singer, 1993, pp. 304-312). Equal Consideration to the Issue Today, the deep discrepancy of treatment of animals by human beings is related with the position of animal as possession. The treatment of animal is determined by the value human provides to them. Often, people claim that animals are not simply objects but in reality they are treated to be the property of human beings. Nonetheless, the current legal framework enforced in various nations play a major role to motivate the owner of nonhumans to ensure that they does not harm others or destroy others’ property. The animal can be pets, laboratory objects or even used as food objects which are solely exploited for the purpose of human well-being. However, it does not justify the fact that nonhumans get lesser consideration to their requirements and interests. Although it is illogical to recommend that human interests and nonhuman interests can be well-adjusted, nonhumans can be secured by legislations for treating them in a well-manner by the owners. Nonetheless, there are several contexts where suffering of humans and nonhumans cannot be justified. For instance, the “Animal Welfare Act” which controls the utilisation of nonhumans in laboratory experiments levies no expressive restrictions on the sufferings on animals (Francione, 2009, pp. 108-142). The suffering of nonhumans is significant issue of concern and due to this reason people use legislation in order to encourage safety of nonhumans. However, it can also be stated that certain practices on nonhumans cannot be protected when the benefits are serious. If the benefits gathered from sufferings of nonhumans are too small to justify, these practices should not be allowed to continue. Furthermore, deriving pleasure from observing the sufferings of animal must be termed as a horrific act. Letting nonhuman beings to suffer from negligence or for business purposes is also believed to be unnecessary by a few like-minded sociologists and thus can also be alleged as unkind acts (Francione, 2009, pp. 108-142). It is morally incorrect to misuse the humans or the nonhuman beings by physical and psychological means. As both humans and nonhumans have realised the agony of pain and the feeling of despair, there should not be any unreasonable sufferings to either of them. As argued by Francione, 2009, although nonhuman beings can be used for the welfare of humans, it does not denote they should feel pain and despair for the pleasure of humans. There are several animal welfare regulations which are generally used for taking the sufferings of nonhumans seriously. In this respect, the laws regarding nonhumans reflect the requirement of balance between the interests of nonhumans in contrast to interests of humans for determining whether the suffering of nonhuman is indispensable. The balance in this sense is evaluation of comparative strengths and differing interests. If sufferings of humans for restricting the use of nonhumans be more important than the interests of animals, only on such grounds, suffering of nonhumans can be regarded as indispensable (Francione, 2009, pp. 108-142). Conclusion The discussion above apparently denotes that humans have mostly treated nonhumans as special at times and similarly as objects in instances based on their sole interests of obtaining value to the existence of the human genre. As was mentioned by Francione (2009), treating animals as objects and making them suffer for the purpose of food to the human beings are justified while torturing them in zoos and disturbing their wild habitat is unjust. A question in this concern arises where it can be argued that whether the degree of sufferings for the nonhumans differ in these circumstances so as to refer one to be just and the other to be unjust. On the similar note, as connoted by Cavalieri & Singer (1993), human sufferings are also not less than those of the nonhumans. This further favours Goodall (1993)’s argument that how can the human society refer nonhuman sufferings to be more noteworthy than that faced by the humans, even in the so called ‘modernism oriented just society’, when the degree of suffering is almost the same with differing method of torturing. It is to be remembered in this context that both humans and nonhumans are living beings who have the ability to feel pain and react accordingly. Valuing the long practiced food chain of the biological cycle, it is of no doubt that humans need to collect their food from nonhumans which must not be referred as an immoral torture. On the contrary, making humans or nonhumans suffer, for the sole purpose of gaining profits or recreational excitement is indeed immoral and must be valued as equal in both the instances. References Cavalieri, P., & Singer, P. (1993). The great ape project — and beyond. The Great Ape Project, pp. 304-312. Francione, G. L. (2009). Animals – Property or Persons. London: Oxford University Press, pp. 108-142. Goodall, J. (1993). Chimpanzees - bridging the gap. The Great Ape Project, pp. 10-18. Read More