Analysis on Humans and Animals - Research Paper Example

Analysis on Humans and Animals Introduction This research paper is focused on a difficult moral and ethical issue: whether killing of an animal for human gastronomy is justified or not. The issue is controversial, thus it is essential to consider the ideas of famous thinkers. The discussion is based on comparison of Elizabeth Costello ideas on humans and animals with ideas expressed by J. Locke, Wallace and Nagel. Costello in Lesson 3 “The Lives of Animals: The Philosophers and the Animals” considers philosophers’ ideas on animals. Such great thinkers as Augustine, Aquinas, and Aristotle claimed that animals have no souls (Coetzee, p. 66-67). The epoch of Enlightenment and its representatives Descartes and Kant tended to the idea that humans are first of all rational beings; philosophers underlined a crucial role of ratio (Coetzee, p. 66-67). Costello made this idea a ground for her support of animals: if humans are rational beings then how it is possible to slaughter and oppress animals? She also compared attitude towards animals in modern world with Holocaust. Certainly, this comparison is not usual but if animals are living creatures, which feel pain and suffer from it, such idea seems rational. Furthermore modern people prefer to pretend being unaware of slaughterhouses and factory farms like earlier people pretended not seeing ash of human bodies in the wind. It is clear, because it is really much easier not to know how this is happening, just consume having no idea about where it comes from. “The more important point here, though, is that the whole animal-cruelty-and-eating issue is not just complex, it’s also uncomfortable. It is, at any rate, uncomfortable for me, and for just about everyone I know who enjoys a variety of foods and yet does not want to see herself as cruel or unfeeling”(Wallace, p5). Costello claims that suppression of these facts is the best evidence of their horror. Following idea expressed by Costello, who is an imaginative character of novelist from the book by John Coetzee, we’ll develop her idea basing on works by Locke, Wallace and Nagel. Comparison of ideas on animals’ oppression by humans Let us give a brief overview of the abovementioned works, which will be a basis for our research. Thomas Nagel in his article “What is like to be a bat?” draws parallels between a man and a bat. He is concentrated mainly on conscious exploration. Nagel underlines that conscious is presented in animals as well as in humans. Why bats, actually? In accordance with the scientist, bats are closely related to humans (Nagel, p45). They feel pain, fear, anger, hunger, like we do. Nevertheless bats’ experiences are subjective in every aspect; therefore we can’t conceive them to a proper extent. The author grounds his claims on suggestion of experiences’ presence in animals, which are beyond human understanding. He provides interesting examples and his arguments are unique and original. Furthermore in a simple manner he introduces deep philosophical ideas. For example, he claims that we can imagine how to be a bat, but it will only means what it would be like to be a bat for us and not what is like for a bat to be a bat (Nagel, p67). We can suppose that Nagel invented his ideas in order to support animals’ rights for existence. Humans aren’t allowed to pull out any kind of species from their being in order to satisfy gastronomic or aesthetic tastes. Costello’ ideas can be compared with ideas by Nagel while she claims that since animals are embodiment of a non rational world their consciousness can’t be totally perceived by human reason. Therefore there’s no way and justification for cruel attitude towards animals. Our research topic is also worth referring to John Locke’ work “Essay Concerning Human Understanding” (1690). Two sections from this work are of great relevance to our paper: Identity of animals and the Identity of man. When Locke talks about animals his discussion looks simple and understandable though it implies a deep sense. Locke compares animals and watch. Both of them have their own organization and require external force for their functioning. Only animal’s motion coming from within body organization and motion of watch force coming from without: “in an animal the fitness of the organization, and the motion wherein life consists, begin together, the motion coming from within; but in machines the force coming sensibly from without, is often away when the organ is in order, and well fitted to receive it” (Locke p4). Another section of Locke’s work “The identity of man” considers man like a fitly organized body. At this stage we can trace similarity with identity of animal. Nevertheless Locke considers soul as an identifier of a man. He didn’t mention presence of soul in animals. Therefore this philosopher tends to delimitation of an animal and a man, considers them to be different creatures. Only humans have soul and, according to the philosopher, this difference is very significant. As far as we can see, unlike Elizabeth Costello, ideas of Locke are directed on man supremacy. Costello’s comparisons on attitude to animals in modern world with Holocaust aren’t supported in Locke’s work. Nevertheless, his discussions to a certain extent complement Costello’s ideas. She doesn’t mention soul as a differentiator of a man and an animal unlike Locke. At this point we can suppose that in such a way Costello avoids acknowledging of an evident difference of an animal and a man. Another work by David F. Wallace “Consider the lobster” presents less philosophical ideas and grounds its discussion on the example of Maine Lobster Festival. The author asks such question: “Is it all right to boil a sentient creature alive just for our gustatory pleasure?”(Wallace, p5). Wallace raised this question and appealed to consciousness of people all over the world. He explored whether it is justified and moral to boil an animal alive (Wallace, p14). The author underlined that it’s easier to avoid responsibility and close one’s eyes on moral aspect of such kind of festival than to discuss its morality. Wallace emphasized on pain which lobsters feel while being boiled, on what they feel and the question arises: who’s responsible for pain and death of lobster: each cooker individually or the whole society, which adopts such kind of meals? Who has a right to make lobsters feel pain and how is it possible? “As you may or may not know, a certain well-known group called People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals thinks that the morality of lobster-boiling is not just a matter of individual conscience” (Wallace, p5). Ideas of Wallace are close to the ideas of Costello. Pain, fear and death of an innocent living creature, a lobster, can’t be justified only because of the fact that its brains have less neurons and pain extent experienced by lobster can’t be compared to a feeling of human pain. Neglect of moral principles in modern society is a perfect background for moral degradation, that will make us return to where we came from. Conclusion If we try to sum up and compare ideas of all four works considered about, we can surely claim that ideas of Elizabeth Costello are closely related to Nagel and Wallace. Three of them underlined subjectivity of animals’ world and experiences, they did it differently and with different accent but this idea is common in all three writings. Costello claimed that it’s impossible to interfere and destroy animals’ world for our gustatory pleasures. Humans aren’t allowed to pull out any kind of species from their being in order to satisfy gastronomic or aesthetic tastes (Coetzee, p60) Costello’ ideas can be compared with ideas by Nagel while she claims that since animals are embodiment of a non rational world their consciousness can’t be totally perceived by human reason. Negel grounds his claims on suggestion of experiences’ presence in animals, which are beyond human understanding. Costello’s comparisons on attitude to animals in modern world with Holocaust aren’t supported in Locke’s work. Locke compares animals and watch. Both of them have their own organization and require external force for their functioning. Only animal’s motion coming from within body organization and motion of watch force coming from without. Therefore there’s no way and justification for cruel attitude towards animals. Basing on the works of great philosophers, Costello raised a question which is often suppressed in modern society: oppression of animals, and any oppression is unacceptable in democratic society as it contradicts basic democratic principles. On the one hand people eat animals for surviving and as well as animals eat each other for surviving. It’s a law of nature and people can’t and won’t change it radically in order to survive. This is what the nature gave us and we have to live according to its laws. But on the other hand the issue remains controversial and generates lasting debates, which will never be stopped due to the existence of another opinion on the given matter: humanity is rational and it’s contradictory to moral values to eat living creatures. Works cited 1. Coetzee, J. M., Elizabeth Costello, New York, Viking, 2003. 2. Locke, J. Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 1690. 3. Nagel, T. “What is it like to be a bat?”The Philosophical Review LXXXIII, 4 (1974): pp. 435-50. 4. Wallace, D. “Consider the Lobster”. (2004). Read More