Animal Behavior Society - 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?” (Goodall) This paper argues over the idea that the humanity and its worth is more should not be judged in light of an ape-centered morality but rather on the basis of a human centered morality. This problem finds it roots in the emerging idea of speciesism. Therefore, that idea is elaborated and counter arguments are given in an organized manner. Peter Singer, an animal rights activist, termed,“the prejudice and biased attitude of a species towards their own interests and against the interest of other species”, as Speciesism.[Ani77]. It can be argued that fighting against speciesism is another chapter in the long struggle for equality in the human history: we now think that animals are below us just as we used de-humanize others on the base of their sex or ethnicity. The argument holds that behaviors reflective of racism, sexism and speciesism are all examples of exclusionary attitudes. Richard Ryder, in ‘The Political Animal: The Conquest of Speciesism’, says that Aristotle thought that animals “exist for the sake of men” while undermining the position of slaves and women [Ric98]. According to Richard, it is not a coincidence, as either one can be a caring individual who recognizes and values other beings or one can be selfish caring only for self. The argument was considered insulting and crackpot when it first came out in 1970. Human equality was the priority with women setting their undergarments alight and the black citizens fighting for the right to vote. Nobody had much time to spare to think about improving the conditions of the gorillas of West Africa. Now, the notion of speciesism has earned kudos and has gained respectability in a variety of professions. David B Wolf, a social worker, is of the view that his colleagues need I rethink on this speciesist attitude. He says that the aim of the social work currently is enhancing human well-being and helping meet the basic needs of all human beings, he suggests that instead of this the issue of speciesism should be incorporated as one of the basic elements of this profession [Wol00]. A Swedish educationalist wrote an article which critiqued the “oppressive human-animal structures of domination” in schools and criticized the speciesism implicit in the textbooks of school children and in the choices of school trips. She has called for such prejudices to be replaced by “respect and compassion for the others”, in broadest meanings of the word[Ped]. Similarly, a professor of cultural studies propagates a non speciesist vision for reading art and literature.According to him, 'the visual arts must be observed so as to interpret the role of the animals which lurk in the corners of the frame or stare from the owners' lap” just as the historians would read history from the point of view of the oppressed [Joh97]. ‘Speciesism’ is a term which has not yet entered popular vocabulary, may be partly because it is such a mouthful.Though the assumption present behind the term – it’s not right to prioritize humans over animals, has indeed become mainstream. The US Association for the Study of Animal Behavior, (ASAB),is against keeping animals as pets as this apparently places the children’s educational requirements above those of the welfare of the poor animals. They advise that if such a situation is inevitable then the “animal handling should be kept to a minimum and be supervised, the need of the animals must be kept paramount”[ASA07]. Most of us are speciesists in our attitudes, evidently, we eat animals and not humans, we keep them locked up in cages as pets and buy more, and we experiment on them endangering their lives to save ours and so on.But these distinctions are increasingly lacking moral justification. We need to develop a more human-centered morality so that we cab back our practices with intellectual support. Human and animal equality The fact of the matter is that the animal rights activists show a completely skewed relationship of humans and animal equality. The idea of the universal brotherhood of mankind was, in actual fact, founded on the principle basis of uniquely human characteristics. At the time when the idea of human equality was propounded in the Enlightenment, the argument was that we should all be treating each other as equals being self-conscious and rational beings. Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher, gave the reason that we have to respect and value other human beings as they are self-willing, they are quite conscious of their existence and cannot merely be used as a means to one’s own end. He goes further on to state that “animals, on the other hand, are not self-conscious and are present merely to be a means for an end, that end being man”[Imm30]. Because animals are not an end for their own selves, humans can treat them as a means to their ends. The blossoming of humans and their consciousness was accompanies by an increasing distinction from the animals[Tho99]. Only when the humans were subjected to the most degraded and cramped of environments did they feel the most commonality with the animals. It has been discovered that the ancient Egyptians used to mummify the remains of cats and dogs, believing that they had an afterlife, and the drawings and carvings show that their gods had animal heads. The existence of animal totems in pre-modern societies was not uncommon; they believed that the humans and animals were intertwined via re-incarnation. Animals were also attributed with agency as some of the societies tried animals in courts and others prayed to fish to go back to the rivers. This feeling of fellowship with animals was linked to those societies who were subject to theimpulses of nature. Such thinking did not help foster brotherly love as some of the tribes called themselves The Humans implying that anyone from the outside was not yet fully human and could be killed with complete impunity, when it might actually be forbidden to kill a pig for food. Animals began to be cast out of the picture in ancient Greece, as it was the time when the humanity began to recognize in totality the abilities of human beings. Greek gods were all humans, though they might have powers to disguise themselves as animals like in the myth of Leda, the swan. Even the animal-human hybrids maintained the locus of human personality, as the mermaids and satyrs crucially had human heads and torsos. Theorists of the good life and ethics like Aristotle, held the argument animals lack reason and so cannot be granted justice. Christianity gave air wider notion of human equality presenting a clearer distinction between the humans and the animals. The Bible says that we have all been created in the image and likeness of God, even the slaves and the women and we are all equally deserving of respect. While Christianity clearly understood the humanity’s great distinction from the nature as a blessing of God, it respected no holy animals, made clear by the point made in Bible where Jesus casts away the swine into the sea.Gog says that, “I have given you all things; every moving thing that lives shall be meat for you.” Defining humans down The argument that human beings and animals are equal is a demeaning notion for humanity. Paola Cavalieri, an animal rights academic, points out that newer notions of animal rights are a direct result of the changing definitions of the humans, as the high-sounding claims of our moral capacity and rationality have shifted to working on a more accessible level[Pao01]. The basic ability to feel pain is the definition of moral worth, as suggested by Ryder and Singer. Apparently, the way superior mental abilities of humans are of no moral worth as Singer talks of the unique abilities of humans to plan the future and their self-consciousness, but holds that they are irrelevant when it comes to inflicting pain, as pain is pain. The commonality with other human beings here is based on our central nervous systems and the relationship with animals is on the same basis. Ryder says, “We are all part of a community of pain”. Singer is of the view that we can assume human life to be worth a bit more than that of an animal because we have higher level of pain recognition. Therefore, we should treat animals who clearly express pain as we would treat a mentally handicapped human[Ins02]. The other writers and researchers take a behavioral and psychological approach. Primate studies have found that primates form a relationship among the members of their own group and that they have a certain form of memory of the events,they can use rocks and branches as tools and exhibit different tool cultures in different groups, they can also carry out some form of a communication and can learn to effectively communicate with humans through signs that can be taught to them. Here, the question of moral worth is determined in field tests or in a laboratory and weighed on the basis of awareness skills and cognition. Humans come out better than chimps in a quantitative rather than qualitative difference based evaluation. “Chimpanzees clearly have some kind of self-concept”, says primatologist Jane Goodall, adding that “the line dividing man from beast has become progressively blurred'[Jon]. It seems as though we no longer know what being a member of the human club means, but are adamant on feeling that it cannot be much. These varied definitions of moral worth are completelyillogical and arbitrary. The observations on the sophistication of primate behavior are peppered with pokes at the human beings. Like when Jane Goodall asks, “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?”,in a piece about chimp behavior[Pao931]. “Why is human arrogance so persistent and where does it come from?” asks Roger and Deborah in a chapter on Primate Language uses[Pao93]. The notion of humanity here is based on humility. For Ryder, this is a generic capacity for gentleness, the feminine opposite to dominating manliness. The Jains walk around apologizing to even ants that they might have mistakenly stepped on, so they surely are the most humane of us all right? But are they? What kind of a model of humanity is that? That is not compassionate care but compassion of subservience as it says that we regret causing pain to others because we feel that we are not worthy enough of anything. The genuine compassion is one that is based on the fellowship of feeling. John Donne, the sixteenth century poet, said that, “any man’s death diminishes me as I am involved in mankind”. Humility is not the foundation on which commonality can be built between two upright equal individuals. Towards a human-centered morality From all this, it is evident that the human-centered morality is our only respite and the only basis on which we can form fertile and equality based relationships with other human beings. The attempts at finding equality between humans and the animals are based on a skewed moral compass and a degrading disgust at humanity. It is our realization and sense that all humans are members of a single family which makes us treat all as equals with love and care, regardless of whether they are handicapped or abnormal.We humans live in a complex but beautiful network of relationships; we are loved and valued by those around us. None of this, in any way, suggests that we should be mean with animals or be disinterested in their plight. Torture is wrong, but not so much because of the pain it causes to the animal as it is because it reflects badly upon the torturer!The same or even greater level of pain for some clear need and purpose, like in a lab or a slaughterhouse, is utterly justified. A follower of human-centered approach can spend hours in the wild studying animals but he would see them through a human eye rather than from a view of trying to escape our humanity. It depends upon the position from which we see the world. Humans are the measure of all things. Morality starts with us! References Ani77: , (Singer), Ric98: , (Ryder), Wol00: , (Wolf), Ped: , (Pederson), Joh97: , (Simons), ASA07: , (Animals), Imm30: , (Kant), Tho99: , (Aquinas), Pao01: , (Cavalieri), Ins02: , (Stoughton), Jon: , (Marks), Pao931: , (P. C. Singer, In The Great Ape Project: Equality Beyond Humanity), Pao93: , (P. C. Singer), Read More