Animal-Human Culture - Essay Example

The distinction between the human and the animal has a number of consequences.’ What, to you, are the 3 most important consequences? The differentiation between the human and the animal is an important one based on a number of distinctions. Homo sapiens have an obvious language, poetry and culture, and some scholars believe that the animals do not. There are those that believe that animals are lesser beings than humans because of these differences, with culture and art being considered ‘higher’ to the basal instincts of the animal. This distinction has a number of important consequences for the way in which we view and treat animals, particularly those who believe that animals somehow have less worth or less importance in the world because they differ so strongly. The purpose of this paper is to explore the three most important consequences of this distinction, focusing on the death of animals in slaughterhouses and further afield, the dualism of human/animal (as seen from a feminist perspective) and the treatment of animals in society. This essay will show how the view of animals as inferior creatures has evolved, and will continue to evolve, with the backing of those such as Peter Singer (2006), to enforce or destroy this dynamic. Animal Death The first important consequence of seeing animals as separate from the animal kingdom lies in the treatment of animals in slaughterhouses and other areas. Humans eat considerable amounts of meat (and consume other types of animal products), particularly compared to other members of the animal kingdom (Dunayer, 2004). The way in which we treat animals in the slaughterhouses is extremely different from the way other animals see their prey. A typical predator will kill enough to satiate him, whereas humans tend not to make this distinction (Zamir, 2007). This has led to the creation of an entire industry, relying on the killing of animals as an economic process, rather than simply for food. Humans now employ thousands of workers in thousands of areas just to fulfil their need for hamburgers and steaks. The type of work in the slaughterhouse is cramped and occasionally disgusting (LeDuff, 2003). There are also a number of things we can learn about the way that humans treat each other in this environment. LeDuff (2003) argues that distinctions are not only made between animal and human, but between the different races of human, with some being considered closer to animals than the other. LeDuff covered an incident where someone proclaimed that ‘the tacos are worse than the niggers’. This suggests that the slaughterhouse is full of the prejudices that many assume to have been lost in recent history. LeDuff (2003) also states that the slaughterhouse has a 100% workforce turnover, because it ‘kills people’ rather than animals. Again, we can learn from this that the treatment of animals in this way is not so different from the treatment of humans in the workplace, and those who believe we are superior in some way should learn from this situation. Additionally, when one uncovers the things that go on in a slaughterhouse, it is quite difficult to say that humans are ‘superior’ to animals. For example, Vialles (1994) used studies of animal behaviour to show that the animals can smell the blood from the abattoir, knowing what fate awaits them. This seems unimaginably cruel when one compares the same situation to something that could conceivably happen to a member of the human race. The abattoir is also a place when a great number of animals is massacred, without a thought to the lives and times of the individual. Although animals are considered to be inferior, a similar situation happened in the death camps of Nazi Germany (Ryder, 2000), to the justified outrage and horror of the rest of the world. These people were killed without thought to their lives and families, and we could ask ourselves why animals do not deserve the same privilege based on their perceived intelligence alone. Speciesism as a Dualism The second important consequence of animals being seen as inferior is the way that society revolves around a dualism of animal vs. man and how this is linked to other areas of human culture. For example, it has been argued that the treatment of animals in society is very similar to the treatment of women (and other classes of people seen as subordinate). In this argument, the mistreatment of animals physically is seen as a result of wife-beating, with a number of similarities between speciesism and sexism (Dunager, 1995). The instinctive distinction between animals and humans is seen as inextricably linked to other types of distinction with are perhaps less obvious to some but extremely degrading to our society. This dualism perhaps sets the scene for, or is a result of, the way in which humans see each other and the world, and the need to categorize as one or the other, with the other being seen as necessarily negative. Another interesting aspect of this type of dualism is the links between speciesist language and sexist language. Women have often felt degraded by the use of “man” as a term to represent the entire human race, and the term itself has been used to imply superiority to other animals, in phrases such as “man vs. beast” (Dunager, 1995). There are those that argue that this type of linguistic degradation is evidence for the fact that specieism is a very real type of discrimination and should not be ignored in favour of the type of discrimination that occurs between humans only. The dualism which comes as a consequence of the human superiority complex is also extremely important as it allows ourselves to explore the boundaries between animals and humans. Humans are often perceived as superior because of their rationality, with animals said to be lacking in this area (Elder et al, 1998). If we consider this perspective, the dualism becomes extremely difficult to justify in a number of cases. For example, children do not possess the same rationality as older adults, particularly when they are very young. However, we afford children far more rights and protection than a number of animals (Waldau, 2002). The case becomes further clouded when we consider human beings with forms of mental impairment that cannot participate in the areas which we see as making humans superior; rationality, culture, the arts and so on. This type of discriminatory dualism is an important consequence because it forces us to re-evaluate our position on so-called ‘marginal’ humans and how these fit into the general scheme of specieism. The Treatment of Animals The final consequence that I wish to explore is the general treatment of animals by society and how this results from the view that man is superior. There are a number of good examples of how speciesism is inherent in society, with philosophers such as Carl Cohen going so far as to suggest that it is ‘necessary’. Many of the ways in which animals are treated differently stem from a belief that they somehow belong to some other area of a moral code, and so the rules of society as we know it do not apply to animals. As we have seen before, this helps to justify the killing (on an extremely large scale) of huge numbers of animals for the purpose of human consumption (Pluhar, 1995). It has also been argued that human foetuses have lower levels of sentience than most animals, yet often have more rights, particularly in the later stages of pregnancy (Singer, 2006). As humans are seen as superior, and the child has a genetic link to our species, this is often seen as a relevant decision. However, it can be hard to justify when the other factors are taken into account, such as the sentience, rationality, and family of the animal (Gruen, 2011). If, for example, someone were to have to choose between saving a dog or saving a foetus, many would often choose the latter without really knowing the reasons why (Waldau & Patton, 2006). This is a result of our inbred specieism. Finally, an interesting case of the way animals are treated in society can be explored using conservation and animal protection schemes. Under these schemes, the animal is protected but this is done purely for the purpose of humans (Benton, 1984). Many advertisements for this type of charity focus on the beauty of the animal and the purpose it plays in biodiversity, with biodiversity being emphasized as necessary for ‘our’ future. Biodiversity is emphasized because it contributes to nature in a way that is beneficial to humans (Steinbock, 1978). This is an often-overlooked way that animals are treated by the inherent speciesism of humans but is an extremely clear example of the way in which we see animals as having the purpose of serving us, much like slaves (Ruetenik, 2010). Conclusion It is evident that there are a number of important consequences which arise from making a distinction between humans and animals. The treatment of animals in slaughterhouses gives a clear picture of our brutality when other species are concerned, with the focus being on human well-being. The way in which we use language arises from an important dualism that we see as being necessary for humans, but in fact may be linked to other types of discrimination that we view as abhorrent. Finally, the treatment of animals in society gives a clear indication of how speciesism has shaped our society, with the moral rights of animals being largely ignored for the benefits of the human race. There are a number of ways in which this should be considered and perhaps challenged to help us understand the similarities between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. References Dunayer, Joan. 2004. Speciesism. Ryce Pub. Dunager, Joan “Sexist Words, Speciesist Roots” in Carol J Adams and Josephine Donovan, Eds, Animals and Women: Feminist Theoretical Explorations, Duke University Press, 1995, 11-31. Elder, Glen, Wolch, Jennifer and Emel, Jody, „“Race, Place and the Bounds of Humanity“ in Society and Animals, Vol 6, No. 2,1998, 183-202. Gruen, Lori. 2011. Ethics and Animals: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press. LeDuff, Charlie “At a Slaugherhouse, Some Things never Die” in Cary Wolfe, Ed, Zoontologies: The Question of the Animal, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 2003, 183-197. Pluhar, Evelyn B. 1995. Beyond Prejudice: The Moral Significance of Human and Nonhuman Animals. Duke University Press. Ruetenik, T. 2010. ‘Animal Liberation or Human Redemption: Racism and Speciesism in Toni Morrison’s Beloved’. Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment 17 (2): 317–326. Ryder, Richard Dudley. 2000. Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes Toward Speciesism. Berg. Singer, Peter. 2006. In Defense of Animals: The Second Wave. John Wiley & Sons. Steinbock, B. 1978. ‘Speciesism and the Idea of Equality’. Philosophy 53 (204): 247–256. Vialles, Noelie, “A Place that is No Place“ in Animal to Edible, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994, 15-28. Benton, T. 1984. ‘Humanism= Speciesism?’ Socialism, Feminism, and Philosophy: a Radical Philosophy Reader: 235. Waldau, Paul. 2002. The Specter of Speciesism: Buddhist and Christian Views of Animals. Oxford University Press. Waldau, Paul, and Kimberley Christine Patton. 2006. A Communion of Subjects: Animals in Religion, Science, and Ethics. Columbia University Press. Zamir, Tzachi. 2007. Ethics and the Beast: a Speciesist Argument for Animal Liberation. Princeton University Press. Read More