The Speech of Elizabeth Costello about Unethical Behaviour of Humans with the Animals - Essay Example

Topic xxxxx xxxxx In the speech of Elizabeth Costello, references are made to the unethical behaviour of humans with the animals. Costello presents, to the whole audience, some facts; based on her intellectual observation and these not only relate the tortures man does on animals but also those he commits as a group, totally unaware of what they’re doing. Costello remarks about this in the following fashion: Ours is an enterprise without end, self-regenerating, bringing rabbits, rats, poultry, livestock ceaselessly into the world for the purpose of killing them. And to split hairs, to claim that there is no comparison, that Treblinka was so to speak a metaphysical enterprise dedicated to nothing but death and annihilation while the meat industry is ultimately devoted to life (once its victims are dead, after all, it does not burn them to ash or bury them but on the contrary cuts them up and refrigerates and packs them so that they can be consumed in the comfort of our homes), (Elizabeth Costello, P# 4). Here Costello expresses her disgust regarding the butcher farms, frozen food (meat) and of course the readymade brands; all of which have drastically changed the concepts about an animal and have led us to believe that these products are nothing but for nurturing ourselves, ‘and isn’t this all what it’s about?’ But we must not forget that there are certain renowned concepts amongst us, suggesting that animals are only bred for eating, animals are dirty and shameless by nature and that experimenting upon animals isn’t wrong. There was once a time when animals had the upper hand in the ‘circle of life’ man feared it... but then there came the time when man attacked it and now is the time when man has made animals; his slaves. To be used as food, to be used as luxury clothing, to be used as pets, to be used as a sport and what not. But what our “captives” (Elizabeth Costello, P#6) now in return fight us with, is nothing but their silence, locked up in their zoo’s and experimental facilities all they can do is stare at us for communication isn’t there and all our efforts are concentrated upon our imparting the human way of thought unto them, rather than trying to communicate with them. What must one consider is, that if one can’t think ‘inside’ or think ‘like’ an animal, it does not necessarily mean that the creature has no thinking capabilities. Another example given by Costello in her speech was of Ramanujan who was a mastermind in Mathematics, word of his capabilities had not surfaced yet, she then compares Ramanujan’s inability to communicate (Due to his being far off into India) and relay, to our lack of communication with Red Peter (depicting all other animals as well): How are we to know that Red Peter, or Red Peters little sister, shot in Africa by the hunters, was not thinking the same thoughts as Ramanujan was thinking in India, and saying equally little? (Elizabeth Costello, P# 5). The quote clearly explains what is so very simple to comprehend: If we cannot even figure out the thoughts of other similar human beings who have ‘reason’, how can we even try doing so on animals? It might be that their reason and intellectual capabilities be far greater and far advanced than ours. Another instance given by Elizabeth Costello was of Sultan, an ape under experimental circumstances apparently being pushed to the limits of his thoughts by using wires and bananas and crates to promote thinking capabilities. Costello paints a graphic image of the thoughts that she thinks were going through the ape’s mind: But what must one think? One thinks: Why is he starving me? One thinks: What have I done? Why has he stopped liking me? One thinks: Why does he not want these crates anymore? But none of these is the right thought. Even a more complicated thought--for instance: What is wrong with him, what misconception does he have of me, that leads him to believe it is easier for me to reach a banana hanging from a wire than to pick up a banana from the floor?--is wrong. The right thought to think is: How does one use the crates to reach the bananas? (Elizabeth Costello, P#7). Hence not only does man torture the creature but also forces it to think thoughts that might not be up to the creatures’ standards. David Foster Wallace writes in lieu of Costello’s views regarding people promoting wrong conceptions and ideas; as absurd as: “There’s a part of the brain in people and animals that lets us feel pain, and lobsters’ brains don’t have this part” (Consider the lobster, Pg # 5). Our inability to feel their pain makes us think that we are free to do whatever we want to with the animal. Since it is widely believed that animals don’t have pain receptors we think that entitles us to do anything with them, even boil them alive. What Wallace says about the idea of hurting an animal alive (in Wallace’s case a lobster being boiled alive), and thinking that it won’t hurt the creature since it doesn’t have any pain receptors is: “it takes a lot of intellectual gymnastics and behaviourist hair-splitting not to see struggling, thrashing, and lid-clattering as just such pain-behaviour”. (“Consider the Lobster”, p. 7) Our disappointment of not being able to reveal the secrets of the minds of animals and the concrete fallacies pertaining to their being on an equal footing with ourselves now consequent in the form of the discussion of the differences between animals and humans. Reason and logic are indeed one of the most debatable differences amongst humans and animals and is comprehended as a by product of the human mind. Could it be that our so-said animals’ lack of reason be a cause of how we treat them? Of course, we consider them as inferior to ourselves as possible. Our higher ‘mental power’ has taken animals for granted and their lack of reason has in a way given us a free pass to do anything or everything to them. Be it any lab-geek’s experimental testing or be it for our pleasure in the form of food and sport. The fact remains that humans’ reason against the animals’ lack of reason is far greater, even if compared to the simple and possible consideration of animals being able to reason. Rationality has always been a dominating phenomenon in a human’s life. We dignify and exalt those with higher knowledge of reason. And so it has been since ages of man that reason has always been taken into account for fame, intellectual worth and all other things, even common day jobs. Hence reason is not only the contemplation of the human mind, but it is also a kind of hereditary trait that perhaps compels us to uphold the tradition of measuring other inter and intra species by their ability to reason. Conjectures pointed out by Costello’s colleagues at the table include Cleanliness, shame and consciousness. Our very act of mingling with the species of animals automatically rules out any issues pertaining to the animal’s hygiene while also the element of shame is cancelled. We eat them, we feed them, we interact with them, we play with them; surely sanitation and shame shouldn’t be an issue here. Consciousness as defined by Thomas Nagel in his article “What is it like to be a bat” is simply “if there is something that it is to be that organism” (What is it like to be a bat, P#1). Now, for an organism to feel and accept its presence is like an experience to it, an experience about which Nagel relates (in views of Costello): …we are not incorrigible about experience and because experience is present in animals lacking language and thought, who have no beliefs at all about their experiences (What is it like to be a bat, P#7). To say that an animal has consciousness or to say it the otherwise; wouldn’t matter at all since there is no possible way to find out whether an animal bears it or not and regrettably our suppositions also have a certain limit. Our contemplation of an animals’ lack of rationality , consciousness, soul or a sense of logic results in them being mishandled/tortured by us; humans. So what if we don’t share a soul with the animals, or if we can’t explain whether they reason or not, the fact remains that we, humans, tend to look for similarities with other creatures; one of which is consciousness and to which Costello replies at the dinner table before leaving: They have no consciousness therefore. Therefore what? Therefore we are free to use them for our own ends? Therefore we are free to kill them? Why? What is so special about the form of consciousness we recognize that makes killing a bearer of it a crime while killing an animal goes unpunished? (Elisabeth Costello, Pg#15). Bibliography John Coetzee, “Elizabeth Costello”, Lesson-3, (ISBN: 0-670-03130-5). David Foster Wallace, “Consider The Lobster”, Published August 2004 on Gourmet. Thomas Nagel, “What is it like to be a bat?” The Philosophical Review, 4 October 1974, 435-50. Read More