Killing Animals as a Primitive Aspect of Human Being - Essay Example

Killing Animals: A Primitive Aspect Of Human Being Introduction Human being considers himself one of the superior beings on the planet earth. His desire for superiority over other existing beings is so strong that he not only considers himself superior on the basis of being ‘human’, but also finds other reason like gender, ethnicity, geographical location, educational qualification and color of the skin etc. to impose his superiority over others. History of humanity is a witness to the genocides, mass murders and wars which took place because of the selfish and egocentric desires of superiority by people who did not even think twice before killing millions of people just to acquire the political power over others. With the history of bloodbath in an attempt to gain superiority over other living human beings, expecting human beings to be sensitive towards the animals on the planet earth is a quite an unreal expectation. Human beings have killed, tortured and humiliated other human beings who possessed rationality, consciousness and soul, just to prove their superiority over them. Hence, the fact that human beings consider animals as ‘beings’ without rationality, consciousness or soul has nothing to do with the feeling of entitlement to kill animals. The feeling in the human beings that they are entitled to kill animals come from the innate ‘animalistic’ desire of their mind to prove their superiority over other beings and hence, no matter what explanation they give for killing the animals, the fact remains that human beings are more ‘animal’ like than animals because they kill animals in spite of having choice of not killing them. The choice The lives of animals who are killed to be consumed by human beings as a part of their meal is similar to the lives of the people who were killed in the German concentration camps during the world war (Coetzee 29). The only difference is that the horrors of the lives of people who were tortured and killed in the war had a voice while the horrors with which the animals are killed in the factories and farms do not have a voice (Coetzee 29). People think that they are doing nothing wrong by killing animals because in the first place, people are not sensitive to the death of the animals. They think that they are not doing anything wrong in killing animals because they think that instead of just throwing away, disposing off or burning the bodies of the animals, they use their body parts for different reasons (Coetzee 30). However, even though people are ignorant or lack the knowledge about the factories which kill animals, somewhere in their subconscious they know that the meat they are consuming was once a ‘living’ animal and it was killed just for the purpose of preparing meat for them (Coetzee 30). This thought remains in the subconscious of human beings no matter how they try to rationalize it. Human beings also know that the killing of animals is more horrific than the Nazi camp killings as these killings are going to continue as long as people continue to eat non-vegetarian food (Coetzee 30). Hence, the killing of animals is more barbaric in nature. These thoughts in the subconscious mind make people unhappy and unhealthy. However, the question is what makes human being so insensitive towards the pain of the animals and continue eating meat even after knowing the truth? Rationalization The philosophers like Plato and Descartes have tried to explain God by describing Him as a being of reason (Coetzee 31). Hence, according to them, only those beings who know how to think rationally are worthy of enjoying the benefits of the society like rights, culture, celebrations, respect and love (Coetzee 31). All the other living beings who do not have ‘reason’ as one of their mental abilities have to suffer whatever actions are carried out against them without complaining or fighting for their lives (Coetzee 31). People think that as animals do not have the ability of ‘reasoning’, they simply are not worthy of being treated as God’s creatures (Coetzee 31). Animals are treated like ‘things’ and not like the children of God. Author Coetzee, through the fictional character Elizabeth Costello, argues that the universe is a part of the cosmos and does not have reason of its own (31). Only the brain of the human beings has the ability to ‘reason’ and hence, thinking that animals should be slaughtered just because they have no ability to reason is equal to disrespecting the cosmos and the nature (Coetzee 31). The tendency of ‘reason’ is to give value only to those things and abilities which are useful and produce some result (Coetzee 32). Everything that exists naturally but does not have any utilization is considered as useless by human beings. For e.g. the natural gift that an Indian young man called Ramanuja had to solve mathematical problems were considered useless by western mathematicians as long as it remained unutilized (Coetzee 32). They invited him to England to ‘use’ his abilities (Coetzee 32). Ramanuja became physically sick as he was not able to adapt to the climate and died (Coetzee 32). The tendency of human being is to make use of everything, even animals, which exist in the world (Coetzee 32). By considering themselves superior, they try to impose their ‘human’ qualities on others. Even the scientific world has been cruel to the animals. The experiments that are conducted on animals in the laboratories show the inhuman tendency of people whose only aim is to ‘intellectualize’ the animals through series of cruel experiments (Coetzee 33). In some of the experiments, instead of making food available in easy way, the animals are made to de-emotionalize their thoughts and think rationally and logically to ‘achieve’ the food (Coetzee 33). The interesting thing is that even after ‘intellectualizing’ animals, human beings still feel superior to them because of their identity with their bodies. People identify human being as a being who can walk on two legs, can speak language, can build societies and have certain physical structure (Locke 222). So, even if the animals display rationality and ‘thinking’ power as humans, the human beings still won’t consider animals equal to them as they won’t have the physical structure like the human beings (Locke 222). Animals are condemned by human beings and are considered worthy of punishment, slaughter and lower life not because they lack ‘human’ qualities, but because it is the innate human nature to rule the beings that do not belong to their race (Coetzee 33). The sickness and the sadistic games that human beings play to ‘humanize’ the animals show that they consider themselves superior to others just because they can go beyond emotions and feelings and function simply on the basis of rationality (Coetzee 34). Rationality makes them to torture animals and make them ‘learn’ new things by keeping them hungry, killing their parents, keeping them away from their brothers and sisters, confining them to the laboratory rather than letting them enjoy their freedom in the forests and publishing papers of experiments to get accolades and achievement certificates from the academic world (Coetzee 34). According to Descartes, a living being who does not ‘think’ is not worthy of living or is inferior to human being as it does not reflect the ‘fullness’ of the being (Coetzee 36). Human beings have punished those creatures that enjoy the freedom of being by living in the jungle and enjoy the nature to it fullest rather than forming societies, building homes or restricting themselves to offices and work. Human beings have acted like devils by deciding to treat those animals to the confinement of labs and zoos, whose only essence is the freedom and luxury of living the most beautiful life without boundaries or securities (Coetzee 36). The horror of the Nazi death camp happened because the killers were not able to empathize with the victims and not able to comprehend how it would feel to be in their place (Coetzee 36). The similar lack of empathy is shown by people who kill animals to get the pleasure of eating them. Moreover, human being tries to give rational explanation to the cruelty they practice while killing the animals. It is a known fact that while preparing a lobster recipe, the lobsters are put alive in the kettle with burning water (Wallace, para 12). The intention of putting a live lobster in the kettle is to get a ‘fresh’ taste to the meat (Wallace, para 12). The explanation to this cruel act given by people who eat lobster is that the lobster does not have a brain part called cerebral cortex that makes them feel pain (Wallace, para 17). However, the fact remains that the job of the cerebral cortex is to ‘identify’ a certain experience as painful or unpleasant and not ‘feel’ the pain (Wallace, para 18). It is the nociceptors and prostaglandins ( which are present in lobsters) that perceive pain (Wallace, para 18). Moreover, the observation of what is happening in a brain is not necessarily enough to understand what that creature is experiencing (Nagel page 5). Only the creature experiencing knows what it is ‘feeling’ regarding the process in the brain. Experience has a quality which cannot be comprehended by studying the physical or mental aspects of the organs. The physical reactions of the lobster when put in the boiling water are similar to the physical reactions that a human being might have if thrown in the boiling water (Wallace, para 22). The lobster shows the signs of pain when thrown in water by coming instantly alive, trying to cling to container’s side, hooking the claws on the kettle rim etc (Wallace, para 22). The reaction of the lobster clearly shows that they do not want to experience the pain (Wallace, para 29). However, these reactions are very comfortably ignored by human beings to justify the killing. It is the heart which makes human beings to feel sympathy for others and treat others as they would like to be treated (Coetzee 36). For e.g., if one is to understand the function and the mind of a bat, one has to understand it through the point of view of the bat and not through point of view of a human being (Nagel 4). However, by concentrating completely on the rationality, logic and reasoning, human being has decided to be cruel and remain unconscious towards the pain and suffering of the animals (Coetzee 36). The stubborn desire of human beings to enjoy the luxurious life and to ‘humanize’ everything has made them insensitive and cruel (Coetzee 36). The arrogance of human beings make them to think that ‘thinking’ is what makes man superior and not the ‘natural’ living without any aim of achievements or social recognition. Hence, people who consume meat or people who use animal bodies or living animals in their experiments are nothing but psychopaths who kill other people without any sympathy or feeling (Coetzee 36). Conclusion Human beings think that they are entitled to kill animals because according to them, animals do not have mental or spiritual faculties to understand pain and to reason that they are being treated in an unfair way. However, human beings have no right to think or even to evaluate the position of the animals because whatever opinion they form of animals, they form it with human’s point of view. Moreover, the fact is that the only reason behind human beings killing the animals is the innate desire of superiority over others. Acquiring and demonstrating power over other beings is an inbuilt tendency of the man since the primitive time. Hence, the capability of the animals has nothing to do with it. It is one of the fake rationalizations of selfish human beings. Work Cited Coetzee, J. M. Elizabeth Costello. New York: Penguin Group, 2003. Locke, John. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. London, 1690. Nagel, Thomas. “What Is It Like To Be A Bat?”The Philosophical Review 4 (1974): 435- 450 Wallace, David. “Consider The Lobster”. August 2004. Gourmet. 15 March 2010. http://www.gourmet.com/magazine/2000s/2004/08/consider_the_lobster?currentPage=1 Read More