Either there is a moral distinction between non-human animals and human animals or there is not. It can be said that some human animals are morally indistinct from some non-human animals, that is, they may be less rational, unable to communicate, or unable to conceive of themselves over time, with interests (this list is not exhaustive). As a result, there exists some non-human animals who are morally distinct from some human animals, that is, they may be able to rationalize, communicate, and/or conceive of themselves over time, with interests (again, this list is not exhaustive). If there are no moral distinctions between human and non-human animals, then it is morally wrong to kill, torture, eat, or exploit non-human animals for the same reason it is to kill, torture, eat, or exploit human animals. If there is/are (a) moral distinction(s) between human and non-human animals, then we must elevate those non-human animals, such as all primate species, who reside on the human animal side of the moral distinction line, to the no kill-torture-eat-exploit status presently enjoyed by all humans. In addition, we must also suppress those human animals who reside on the non-human animal side of the moral distinction line, such as infants, mentally-disabled people, and/or people who score lower than a predetermined Intelligence Quotient to the kill-torture-eat-exploit status. Therefore, either it is morally wrong to kill, torture, eat, and/or exploit non-human animals for the same reason it is to do so to human animals or we must distinguish between those non-human animals that meet our morally distinct criteria and those human animals that do not and confer upon them both the properties allocated as such being a member of each group, i.e. infants and mentally-disabled people, along with the other non-human animals, for kill, torture, eat, or exploitation status and 'higher' animals for rights reserved recognition. For those versed in Singer, the latter will parallel his thoughts.
To aid the reader, I never define what a ‘moral distinction line’ might encompass, however, I do make a grand assumption (as a suppressed premise) that whatever morally distinct line we may be able to draw it will inevitably elevate some non-human animals and depress some human animals.
(I reference Seva throughout the next couple paragraphs not for arbitrary distinction, but because I think she is, for want of a better classification, intelligent.)
Seva, the brilliant skeptic she is, instantly pointed out that non-human animals used for experimentation aid human physiological comprehension and reduce the amount of suffering (of humans) worldwide. I’m sure that if she were given more time she could have elaborated further on the number of pharmaceuticals alone that have saved or prolonged human life at the expense of a non-human animal test subject. Point well taken; “her” (because it certainly does not ‘belong’ to her, and probably did not originate in her cognitive capacities either) argument broken down goes something like this: 1) Some act is morally justifiable if it increases human longevity and decreases human suffering. 2) It is morally unjustifiable to use any human as a means to an end. 3) Experimentation on non-human animals is some act that increases human longevity and decreases human suffering, while simultaneously not using a human as a means, therefore 4) experimentation on non-human animals is justifiable. Within this argument is a/the suppressed premise that I attack vigorously: “it is morally justifiable to use any non-human animal as a means to an end.” This premise has not been addressed, let alone substantiated, repeatedly by those responsible for the ethics of science and it is through the ignoring of this said premise that experimental scientists and behavioral psychologists have been able to slaughter, mutilate, torture, and rape non-human animals’ lives for generations. Indeed, the Holocaust, Crusades, and other various subjugations of minority groups should be considered lighter moments in our continued history of arrogant persecution and anguish compared to the ravaging assault we inflict on disparate species each day. It follows that I don’t dispute Seva’s claim outright, I merely point to the fact that scientists, along with other non-human animal torturers and murderers, apply an arbitrary distinction between Homo sapiens and every other specie with no moral justification whatever. Either we use those Homo sapiens who are non-human animal-like for the same purposes we exploit non-human animals, or we reject the exploitation of all non-human animals as morally indefensible.
However, Utilitarians might agree with Seva insofar as the total amount of happiness in the world must result in a net gain compared with the total amount of suffering in the world –as Utilitarians are principally concerned with beings’ happiness and unhappiness, pleasure and pain. Nevertheless, it is quite arguable, but not in the scope of this essay, to assert that electrocuting a dog until it defecates just to see her jump over a dividing wall or terrifying a young primate just to see her hold onto the fake “mother” with the furry chest tells us 1) very little about human behavior and 2) causes an extreme discrepancy between the amount of suffering caused and the happiness gained by divergent beings. As a Psych major, Seva, I’m sure you could detail to me far more barbarically savage acts of “behavioral evaluations” than I have listed here; my chief question to you, and to others who reason along these lines, is that if we can claim to derive the knowledge we do from these non-human animal test subjects, then what criteria do we use to morally distinguish between Pavlov’s dogs and mentally retarded individuals? Between Thorndike’s cat puzzle boxes and infants? Between Skinner’s rat boxes and women, Blacks, gays, or any other subjugated minority? More directly, if we concede that it is morally justifiable to use non-human animals for food, torture, experimentation, and/or exploitation, then we have no more moral justification for condemning Hellenistic infanticide or the Nazi eugenics program than we do for enslaving Blacks or burning heretics during the Inquisition, as each of these [groups] were arguably (at their respective times) considered less than human –whether that ultimately matters or not is what we are currently questioning.
Another argument proffered was the argument from potentiality. Infants, it was reasoned, are a ‘potential’ human being and thus should have the rights conferred upon them as such being a member of the class human being. This still does not address the issue of why a member of species A has any more right to life than species B, however. Working with the ‘infant as potential human being’ argument, might we then say that an infant guaranteed to die (perhaps by some terminal disease) before the age of 5, or even 10, can and should be used for food, experimentation, or general exploitation? I see why not, for she will always remain in a child-like state of life, and if she is going to die young, we might as well use her to the betterment of human-kind (the question I’m indirectly asking is when “human being” begins and zygote, fetus, or infant leaves off). Of course, one will certainly have to define what we mean when we say human being. Do we mean a member of the species Homo sapiens, or some other complex, yet to be defined variable(s)? Frankly, the argument from potentiality seems suspect, it has been claimed by obstetricians that over 50% of fertilized eggs do not implant on the uterine wall and are excreted with other waste; many times the woman didn’t even realize she was pregnant. Are we to therefore hold women liable for murder, or at least negligent homicide, after all, they did excrete and destroy a potential human being?
Ok, let’s get down to business and dismiss the argument once and for all. Barack Obama is a potential president of the United States. Barack’s potentiality to presidency does in no way bestow upon him some right to the presidency, much like a cluster of cells or an infant in no way bestows upon ‘them’ the rights of a human being merely because they have the potential to become a human being. No? You have the potential to be a University graduate. Would you claim that you hold, or at least should hold, the rights of a University graduate now even though you are still a student? Absolutely not, and it follows that the argument from potentiality is as vacuous as the argument from animal experimentation.
If one should wish not to post a comment to the blog, I would be more than happy to answer any and all objections that may arise through email: mgriff20@uic.edu
-please note, this is a tentative piece, subject to review for the accuracy of the claims made by myself. In other words, if my hastily constructed arguments are, upon review, not what I intended, I reserve the right to revise. Thanks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This is a very interesting piece.. However, my problem with the argument is this:
So lets say there is a distinction between human and non-human animals. The only distinction your argument seems to allow for is a moral one, or the distinction through intelligence.
For the record, I am a fan of animal rights, and I think it is silly to kill when we obviously do not need to.
In class, you said that it would be okay for a man to kill an animal in the forest. . if he needed it for survival. Now, from a strictly biological perspective, with the idea of “survival of the fittest” in mind, there is a reason humans dominate over other order animals.
We as a species have been able to evolve, and we have the ability to use create and use complex tools, and our genetic makeup is what can differentiate us from the other order of animals.
I understand that this may not be the most “moral” way to look at the situation, but, it is still a fair and rational way to look at it. . Empathy and Sympathy are things that we feel for others, it is part of being a higher-order animal. Many other higher order animals have been shown to feel these things as well. However, these other animals have only shown these emotions for animals within their own species, not outside of it. Most of the things about us, whether we think it is okay to admit it or not, is a function of biology. We are just animals, and we act that way. None of us think it’s bizarre for other non human animals to eat one another, or to kill other animals to protect their young and their kin. In our minds, this is the way the animal kingdom works. Even when a non human animal kills a human, we generally don’t get upset with the non human animal, but realize that it is a function of their intuition, and their nature, and they cannot control it.
With the same logic, no, we as animals will not hurt our own young and kin, because they are part of our species, so eating/testing the mentally disabled or fetuses is taboo.
I realize that from a philosophical point of view, this is probably a ridiculous and obnoxious way to absolve ourselves of responsibility and guilt, but from the biological perspective, this is how it works. We are superior, and if we weren’t, we wouldn’t have made it this far. Evolutionarily speaking, we would have/should have died out a while ago, but because of our higher order thinking, and our ability to use and make tools, we have survived.
The sympathy a human feels for a lower-order animal, or our ability to put ourselves in their shoes, and feel, is something that is inherently human. Our guilt for hurting these animals is also part of the “humanness” that differentiates you from other animals. Your beliefs that these animals should be helped, and that other humans are being “barbaric” (for lack of a better word) and your desire to do something about it are all things that differentiate you from the lower order animal species.
Using this logic, the distinction can be made between human animals and non-human animals, that has nothing to do with morals or intelligence. This idea of us being part of the animal kingdom, can rationalize the use of non human animals to aide the good of the human animals. It’s simple biology.
Seva,
(I have a feeling this is going to be tedious to read here, sorry.)
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I appreciate your comments and I hope to get closer to understanding this position you are putting forth. You can skip to the last 4 paragraphs if you'd like, but the interjections attempt to build my case, so you might want to read them as well.
To keep this on point I'll just copy/paste those segments of your argument here in the order that they appear -for dissection- and then end with my conclusion.
“So lets say there is a distinction between human and non-human animals. The only distinction your argument seems to allow for is a moral one, or the distinction through intelligence.”
No one is denying there to be a distinction between human and non-human animals (my cat has claws, I have nails, etc.), but to what claim shall we make that allows us to subjugate one characteristic of an animal below that of another? I’ll show you my cards, what we call “moral” is really only some “should” or “ought” judgment, so when you make a claim like, and this is my paraphrase, “species A should have more weight given to their interests than species B, because species A happened to evolve to the, for the time being, top of the food-chain," you are most definitely making a moral claim. See the trick? “Moral claim” is so broad a category that it necessarily encompasses most, if not all, judgment propositions that one could render. I know I know, it's sneaky.
“In class, you said that it would be okay for a man to kill an animal in the forest. . if he needed it for survival.”
Yes, and I see where this slippery slope is going (for if I allow for killing in a forest for survival, then I should just as readily allow for killing in a laboratory for survival). The equivocation of “survival” should seem readily apparent, yes? The first definition of survival is that which “if ‘man’ should not gain immediate subsistence (food), then he will die, therefore he should kill a, presumably, non-human animal.” The second definition is that which “if ‘man’ should not gain some life-extending drug whatever, then we should use, presumably, a non-human animal for testing –assuming that testing leads to the survival of the ‘man’." I have not concluded anything thus far from this reasoning, whether you agree or disagree with this distinction will guide our next exchange, assuming there will be a next exchange. However, I have yet to see how any of this sub-argument would prevent us from using and killing humans. Certainly you aren’t advocating that if there exists a human animal in the forest, and John is starving, then John should kill the human animal, are you? For wouldn’t that then, following your implicit reasoning, allow us to experiment and test on a human animal, if it too would save John’s life, or at least prolong it?
“Now, from a strictly biological perspective, with the idea of “survival of the fittest” in mind, there is a reason humans dominate over other order animals.”
“Survival of the fittest” was coined by Herbert Spencer, a social-political theorist, and refers to the phenomenon of social Darwinism, so you cannot be using a “strictly biological perspective” when referencing an idea from someone who was most concerned with sociological interests. In addition, if you are attempting to use this “survival of the fittest” idea, then it is misapplied here, as it refers to intra-specie domination and not inter-specie domination. The “strictly biological perspective” you might have meant was natural selection and reproductive fitness, though I see not how this would aid your hypothesis. In addition, I am interested in the reason humans “dominate” over other animals and why it should be any different than a Chimp “dominating” over a rabbit. Please explain, both the reason and the use of “dominate.”
“We as a species have been able to evolve, and we have the ability to use create and use complex tools, and our genetic makeup is what can differentiate us from the other order of animals.”
And this is different from the distinctions that separate a Bonobo, Gorilla, or Chimpanzee from other non-primates how? Is this really what permits humans to exploit, kill, and torture other sentient beings -genetic makeup, tool usage, and evolution? It seems rather lacking, doesn’t it? I take it that a 2% discrepancy in genetic material between a Chimpanzee and a human is what allows us unbridled molestation of said former. What about the average .1% that separates most humans from each other? Is not drawing lines on percentage discrepancies of genetic material between beings that feel pain and suffer rather capriciously arbitrary, if not conspicuously suspect -as all benefits rest with one species? What, then, is the difference between men drawing a “subjugation line” for all those beings with an XX orientation on the 23rd chromosome and what you are advocating, for both lie on genetic makeup differences?
“I understand that this may not be the most “moral” way to look at the situation, but, it is still a fair and rational way to look at it.”
Yes, likewise, I too understand that slavery may not be the most moral way to look at a situation, but in light of cotton needing picked and farm animals needing tended, it is still a fair and rational way to look at resource allocation.
“Empathy and Sympathy are things that we feel for others, it is part of being a higher-order animal. Many other higher order animals have been shown to feel these things as well.”
I’m failing to see the relevancy of these two attributes when ‘all’ one should consider is the interests of another being whom can feel pain. We need not sympathize with Jews to know it wrong to burn them alive in Auschwitz ovens and we need not sympathize with Blacks to recognize their interests being violated when whipped by a white supremacist bigot. Likewise, we need not sympathize with the tortured primate in the “behavioral evaluation” or empathize with the rabbit who just had their eyes reduced to blistering tissue to recognize that their interests, namely avoiding pain, have been severely violated.
“However, these other animals have only shown these emotions for animals within their own species, not outside of it.”
Is this a justification for torturing and eating them? Does this render their interests to be less considered? What of infants, mentally retarded individuals, and societal defects whom exhibit this lack of “emotions” for animals outside their own species?
“Most of the things about us, whether we think it is okay to admit it or not, is a function of biology.”
Sociologists, among others, would sharply question that assertion, it would seem psychologists would as well. Not important to our conversation, however, I do tend to agree.
“We are just animals, and we act that way.”
This is interesting, because thus far your argument has sought to distance human from non-human animal so that we may excuse what one would consider inexcusable behavior towards the latter, yet with this claim we are right back in the animal category, more precisely, we are “just animals.” And though I agree with this latter statement, it seems to be a neat trick to excuse calculated misery towards other pain-feeling beings by just claiming, “well, I can’t help it, because I’m just an animal.” Something smells fishy here, I’ll discuss it later.
“None of us think it’s bizarre for other non human animals to eat one another, or to kill other animals to protect their young and their kin.”
Agreed, but might we consider it “bizarre” if other non-human animals set up factory farms, experimentation labs, zoos, or any other mass system of exploitation when they could just eat plants or forego a year or two of extra life?
“In our minds, this is the way the animal kingdom works. Even when a non human animal kills a human, we generally don’t get upset with the non human animal, but realize that it is a function of their intuition, and their nature, and they cannot control it.”
I would question what “intuition” is, or even “nature,” but on the whole this seems like an argument against the human animal killing of non-human animals, precisely because ‘we’ can “control it.”
“With the same logic, no, we as animals will not hurt our own young and kin, because they are part of our species, so eating/testing the mentally disabled or fetuses is taboo.”
Here it is, the meat and potatoes of the argument, in all its anthropocentric glory. I find it interesting that you recognize that “we as animals will not hurt our own young and kin,” but do not explicitly follow this logic out; that we will hurt other species’ young and kin and sometimes for the most trivial purposes. Frankly, you have yet to demonstrate why one species’ interests should be preferred to another’s other than the fact that you reside in, and have greater knowledge of, your own species. Is there really any difference between this type of speciesism and racism, sexism, Eurocentrism, or ethnocentrism?
“I realize that from a philosophical point of view, this is probably a ridiculous and obnoxious way to absolve ourselves of responsibility and guilt, but from the biological perspective, this is how it works.”
“Biological perspective?” If my goal as a being is to pass my genes on to the next generation, then I see not how zoos, animal experimentation labs, factory farms, and house-pets will help me do this. Moreover, I see not how their massive amount of suffering is justifiable from my trivial gain. Scratch that, conceding a point, I can probably see how my reproductive fitness is enhanced by another beings suffering, yet I see not how this reproductive success is justifiable for non-human animals, but not human animals. For all intensive purposes, I should be pleased that so many Jews were slaughtered in the Second World War, just as I ought to be glib at the prospect of all the beings slain at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, after all, their deaths precluded them from passing on their genetic material, thus making it more likely that my own fitness will be that much more successful. Is this the train of thought your riding? It seems like once we reduce ourselves to reproductive-success-at-any-cost thinking, we must then not hesitate to eliminate the more immediate threats to my fitness, which are not the non-human animals that may aid my perpetuation, but my next door neighbors with the hot wives whom I want to mate with. In your line of thought, it seems permissible to kill my neighbors so that I may gain access to 'their' mates.
“We are superior, and if we weren’t, we wouldn’t have made it this far.”
In what way? There are species with far better eyesight, olfaction, hearing ability; who are faster, better swimmers, and better climbers. Are you ready to concede that it is merely an accident of evolution that you are sitting where you are today, expressing the sentiments you have, and that it could have been Chimpanzee, Bonobo, or Canine who developed whatever it is that makes you “superior” prior to you?
“Evolutionarily speaking, we would have/should have died out a while ago, but because of our higher order thinking, and our ability to use and make tools, we have survived.”
Some scientists think alligators are modern Dinosaurs, did their “higher-order thinking” and the “ability to use and make tools” assist them in surviving for so long? Or was it more likely that they were better adapted to their environmental niche than other, specialized beings? And if so, does this evolutionary accident allow their interests to weigh more than any other beings'?
“The sympathy a human feels for a lower-order animal, or our ability to put ourselves in their shoes, and feel, is something that is inherently human.”
“Inherent?” What of feral children, or abused and neglected children? It is quite known through needless experiments that non-human primates, when reared in complete isolation, are severely anti-social. Perhaps what you refer to as “sympathy,” which I will correct and label an equal consideration of interests, is instead more of a learned behavior, as opposed to an “inherent” trait.
“Our guilt for hurting these animals is also part of the “humanness” that differentiates you from other animals.”
Is this difference something we can use to justify the repeated exploitation and murder of non-human animals with? It seems quite the opposite.
“Your beliefs that these animals should be helped, and that other humans are being “barbaric” (for lack of a better word) and your desire to do something about it are all things that differentiate you from the lower order animal species.”
I never wished or moral proselytized that we should “help” other animals, but that we should merely consider their interests in an equal light, non-specieist. In addition, these differences you mention, are they what can allow me to subjugate another sex, race, or species? If so, please detail.
“Using this logic, the distinction can be made between human animals and non-human animals, that has nothing to do with morals or intelligence.”
I hope by now it is clear that this is false. “You” are asserting that “humans should use other animals as their means because X.” This is very much a moral claim, as you have rendered some “should” or “ought” judgment upon the world. And like any “should” or “ought” claim, X can be dissected for its reasonableness.
“This idea of us being part of the animal kingdom, can rationalize the use of non human animals to aide the good of the human animals. It’s simple biology.”
It seems that ‘us’ being a part of the animal kingdom should make it all the more imperative to consider each being’s interests equally, as we too are among the assorted beings...
Let’s wrap it up. You basically said and implied this, “humans evolved the most well adapted first, as a result we can make better tools than any other species, and therefore we have the right to use those tools in our perpetual quest to subjugate every other species that we designate under us." Seems quite arrogant spelled out like this, doesn’t it? In fact, why stop at the arbitrary distinction of species, it would seem to logically imply that “man evolved the most well adapted first, as a result he can use his strength to subjugate women in entirety.” Or how about “Europeans evolved the most well adapted, tool producing culture first, therefore Europeans should rule over every other culture that exists.
Bluntly, you have yet to demonstrate why a species, which is nothing more than an interbreeding, capable-of-viable-reproduction set of beings, is not any more arbitrary a "subjugation line" than class, race, sex, or sexual orientation, besides saying the equivalent of “we’re Homo sapiens and we’re number one.” Indeed, even if we were to divide beings along species’ lines, we could then not even include prepubescent or sterile humans, as they are incapable of interbreeding or of viably reproducing. I know, it’s shocking, right? You’re like, “damn, I thought I had him on all this species business and then it turns out that a species is more narrowly defined than any other term we've been discussing.”
Irrespective, the fact remains that privileging one species' interests over another's, especially your own over every other, is an unjustifiable, untenable claim. It becomes even clearer how obnoxious such a position is when we get past the arrogant assertion that “we’re superior” and recognize that even if we were, it would provide no more moral justification for subjugating another being than the school-yard bully would give for beating up on little Tommy. It’s not simple biology, it’s the complex, equal consideration of interests, and it is very much a moral imperative.
Post a Comment