Welcome friends!
I was reading something commemorating the victims of the Nazi death camps a few weeks ago. (I know. Again with the Nazis. They’ve been gone for decades now but still they cast their baleful shadow over humanity. I suppose it’s because they’re such a vivid reminder of what we might all become if not eternally vigilant.) Anyway, it got me thinking about something I’ve been meaning to talk about for some time now: animal rights. Whoa! Hold your horses buddy! I’m absolutely not following Nazi philosophy and trying to consign some people to a subhuman status so I can bump them off with impunity. Turn that thought around about one hundred and eighty degrees and you’ll be closer to the mark. No, I was thinking the murder camps engineered by the Nazis bring to mind nothing so much as what we call in this country factory farms (that would be industrialized facilities for raising and slaughtering animals as economically efficiently as possible). That got me wondering whether there might be some conceptual commonality. Sound like a blog post? I thought so too.
First let me just address an issue that always threatens to complicate any discussion of animal rights: the curious fact that the English word “animal” has two contradictory definitions. If one checks out the definitions on the Merriam-Webster website you’ll find one says the word refers to “a living thing that is not a human being or plant” while another says it refers to “any living thing that is not a plant,” which would obviously include humans or most of them anyway. Awkward. Do humans have ethical responsibilities relating to animals? What? You mean to one another? Oh boy. I suppose we might as well choose one definition or the other before we tie ourselves up in knots. The definition that makes the most sense to me and the one I intend to use in this post is the one in which the term animal encompasses humans as well as non-human creatures. Why? Do I really need to explain that? From a scientific standpoint we clearly belong to the animal kingdom. You know humans and chimpanzees share ninety-six percent of their genetic code, right? And you know we and our close relatives the chimps have a little rodent-like creature as our shared ancestor and before that some sort of primitive sea creature? Or are you one of those people who reject what science has to say on the subject? Not dignified enough for you?
What about the second English definition of the word animal in which humans are not animals? Where’s that coming from you ask? Well, it seems pretty obvious to me that line of thinking must come from the egotistical impulse to suppose we’re all very special indeed and humans must therefore comprise their own very special category of creature. Behold the Mighty Human! Sorry. I may have gotten a little sarcastic just then. I just find it a bit risible. The only things we’ve ever had going for us are our opposable thumbs, which have allowed us to manipulate our environment relatively easily; an impressive vocal chord and tongue arrangement, which has allowed us to develop complex spoken and eventually written languages; and most likely relatedly our oversized craniums. Put these traits together and you have the creature that rules the roost here on Earth. For the time being anyway. Don’t get me wrong. Other animals have other attributes that are just as impressive in their own ways. The dinosaurs had a pretty good run. We’ve got a ways to go yet to match their record. The reality is nature operating through the process of evolution will give pretty much anything a go and humanity is just one experiment among many. We’re the big headed creatures who talk a lot. It seems entirely possible to me our frequently exalted special powers may one day prove instead to be our weak spot. And after we manage to kill each other off one way or another? Behold the Mighty Cockroach!
But seriously, I think our non-human fellow travelers tend to get a bad rap because on the one had they’re generally rather stupid and thus easy to victimize at least under our current state of technology and on the other hand some of them would be only too happy to bite one’s head off given half a chance. I suppose that’s why calling someone an animal is considered such an insult. On the other hand one must admit humans can be evil in a way no non-human animal ever was or could be. Combine our particular capacity for evil with our other special capabilities and one ends up with the potential for a very nasty little package indeed. I suppose that’s why it’s not at all unusual to find humans who prefer the company of at least some non-human animals to the human variety.
Having set the stage let me get finally to the point of this post: my take on the question of humanity’s ethical responsibilities toward non-human animals and the possibility the answer to that question might rebound on human attitudes and behaviors toward their fellow humans. Let’s take the first issue first. I think humans have the same ethical responsibilities toward non-human animals as they have toward humans. I’m not writing a treatise here but let just give a few quick examples of how I think that plays out.
Consider first the characteristic stupidity of non-human animals. Actually I might be a little too glib on that point so let me backtrack just a bit. Not only is there considerable variation in the intellectual capabilities of different species but assessing the intelligence of other species is complicated by the fact they tend to have intellectual capabilities related to their own distinctive environments and to whatever they need to do to survive, not to human environments and what we need to do to survive. But let’s not get carried away. Certainly some animals are stupid no matter how one cares to define intelligence. My point is some humans are quite stupid as well. If someone is sufficiently stupid is it morally acceptable to kill them? In general I think the answer would be no. However, mental capabilities play some role, don’t you think? If someone is totally brain dead I guess I’d have to say I might find it morally acceptable to pull the proverbial plug and kill them or let’s just say allow them to die. Why would that matter if intellectual capability were entirely irrelevant? What if someone is nearly brain dead? I don’t know. As I said I’m not writing a treatise on ethics. My point here is simply that I think it makes sense to apply the same general sort of reasoning to humans and non-human animals. If we found a non-human animal with the intellectual capacity of a human that would have to count for something. And delving into the ethics of killing a nearly brain dead person must I feel shed some light on the ethics of killing a non-human creature with the intellectual capacity of a nearly brain dead person.
Let’s have another example. Killing people obviously presents ethical issues but so does causing other people pain. The considerations applicable in the two contexts are not necessarily identical. That is to say, even in situations where some people may find it ethically acceptable to kill someone, maybe executing someone who committed a particularly heinous crime or killing an enemy combatant in a war, I think most of us would still tend to think we have some sort of ethical responsibility to dispatch the other fellow as humanely as possible under the circumstances. If one does something reprehensible like burn someone alive after the fashion of those Islamic State terrorists most people would surely conclude one has neglected some important ethical obligation. It makes sense to me to suppose this consideration must apply equally to non-human animals. That is to say, even if one were to find killing some non-human animal ethically acceptable on some grounds, let’s say because of its nearly brain dead mental capacity and the fact it is standing on one’s foot and won’t budge for love nor money, it seems reasonable to me to suppose one still has an ethical obligation to avoid causing the creature any unnecessary pain.
Maybe just one more. As I mentioned previously many non-human animals are perfectly willing to bite one in the head with no apparent appreciation whatsoever of the thorny ethical issues most of us believe might normally be involved. But of course some humans also have a pronounced capacity for violence and a diminished ability to understand or appreciate conventional ethical reasoning. Do we kill humans with these characteristics? If not, then why would it make sense to kill non-humans for these reasons? And what if rather than killing people with violent tendencies and a diminished capacity for ethical reasoning we could just confine them somewhere suitably comfortable and so on such that they would have no opportunity to harm other people? Surely that must be a relevant consideration. Wouldn’t the same consideration apply to non-human animals as well?
Now let me just say a few words about the main alternative to the way of thinking about the ethical responsibilities of humans toward non-human animals I’ve just been discussing. This alternative postulates one is justified in applying one set of ethical considerations to humans and another to non-human animals because the distinction between humans and non-human animals carries some independent weight beyond the sort of interspecies attributes and capabilities I was just discussing. In other words, this alternative involves the belief humans are special in part simply because they’re human and not solely because they can think or feel or have whatever trait or capability one feels inclined to relate to ethical considerations and that might apply equally to humans and non-human animals. I’m talking about the sort of thing one tends to find in certain Middle Eastern religions such as Christianity for example. And God gave humans dominion over all the non-human animals. Well, isn’t that convenient? I have to say I’ve always found this line of thinking more than a tad irritating. I suppose it must be the underlying egotism I find so offensive. Any argument featuring the idea that I’m special and you’re not or vice versa is always a bit of a red flag for me.
That brings me to the second issue I raised earlier: the possibility one’s attitudes toward non-human animals might affect one’s attitudes toward one’s fellow humans. How likely is species-based egotism to be related to other notable forms of egotism such as racism and nationalism? Quite likely it seems to me. And how likely is it that the feeling that killing the Other is ethically acceptable in one context of egotism liable to bleed into another? Again, quite likely it seems to me. That is to say, if I were looking for someone to run a murder camp I think I’d probably start by checking out the local slaughterhouses and factory farms and if no suitable personnel could be found maybe moving on to just carnivores in general. Not that any of these people would necessarily go for it of course. They’d still have to make the conceptual leap from species-based egotism to race-based egotism or whatever. I’m just saying maybe they wouldn’t be starting from ground zero. I’d probably save the tofu-eating bunny-hugging vegans for last. Not that I’d rule anything out entirely. One might find someone who loves and respects non-human animals but really, really doesn’t like humans who might fit the bill quite nicely indeed. But I can’t escape the feeling that would represent a bit of a long shot.
Now that I’m thinking about it, I wonder if in the end it won’t be our capacity for evil that proves our undoing but our lamentable tendency toward egotism. What if a highly intelligent and capable alien species were to arrive on Earth one day and start casually killing humans because they aren’t Barsoomians or whatever and thus normal Barsoomian ethics do not apply? If we’re honest and we apply the Golden Rule the many people who currently follow the species-based ethics I was just discussing wouldn’t really have any basis for complaint, would they? It should all sound perfectly reasonable to them. Or maybe these people are thinking they’ll use one set of ethics when they hold the upper hand and pull another out of the hat if ever they’re in danger of ending up on the wrong end of the old cattle prod. I suppose they could give it a try but I’m not sure it would prove very compelling to your average alien braniac. And if we have no real basis to engage these aliens in ethical argument then what? War, I suppose. You’re not worried at all? We can take them? Sure buddy. You watch a lot of TV; I can tell. Let’s just hope an alien death ray doesn’t wipe that smirk off your face one day. Karma can be a real bitch sometimes.
References
Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds. Stefan Lovgren. National Geographic News. August 31, 2005. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html.
Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists. BBC. February 21, 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-17116882.
Dolphins ‘call each other by name.’ Rebecca Morelle. BBC. July 22, 2013. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23410137.
Dolphins can recognize whistles from old tank mates from over 20 years ago, study finds. Meeri Kim. Washington Post. August 6, 2013. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/dolphins-can-recognize-calls-from-old-tank-mates-from-over-20-years-ago/2013/08/06/1b1d5ab8-feb3-11e2-bd97-676ec24f1f3f_story.html.
Fish do feel pain, scientists say. Alex Kirby. BBC. April 30, 2013. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2983045.stm.
Further evidence crabs and other crustaceans feel pain. Rebecca Morelle. BBC. January 16, 2013. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21044077.
Why Not Eat Octopus? Silvia Killingsworth. The New Yorker. October 3, 2014. http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/eating-octopus.
Gorilla brothers Kesho and Alf joy at Longleat reunion. BBC. August 16, 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-19281347.
