Animals and Human Culture - Essay Example

Animals and Human culture Before the 19th century, the West viewed nonhumans as being outside the legal and moral community (Francione, 2008). In this respect, how they were treated or used raised no legal or moral concern. The Western community could use nonhumans for whatever purpose they felt like, inflicting suffering and pain to whatever magnitude they wanted and no obligation owed to them would be deemed as being violated. In other words nonhumans were not distinguished from other inanimate objects and as such had no legal or moral obligations (Nikki, 2012). There are those acts that from the surface appeared as obligation towards other animals, for instance an obligation not to injure a donkey or horse that belonged to the neighbor, in actual sense we owed the obligation not to the animal but to our neighbors. Issues of moral became a concern only to the limited scope when humans who were cruel or known to subject the nonhumans to suffering were generally thought to be capable of maltreating humans. Just like the above, the obligation related to the animal in question was actually owed to the other human beings. Nonhumans were viewed as having little moral significance. This essay will focus on Jane Goodall assertion that ‘Who are we to say that the suffering of human being is more terrible than the suffering of nonhuman being, or that it matters more’? (1990). Some scholars believe that human being suffer more as compared to the nonhuman beings and they deem the latter as things and equals them to machines. On the other hand, some scholars such as Goodall argue that humans are not unique from other nonhuman being and thus the same compassion and consideration shown to human being should also be shown to animals. This essay will focus not both sides of the argument in order to get a clear understanding of how nonhumans being are perceived. Research shows that individuals do not have capacity to know with certainty who undergoes more suffering in the time of pain or horror (Francione, 2008). It would be right to say therefore that beyond a certain degree human are not able to fully apprehend the extent of other’s suffering. Elaine Scarry in her book ‘The Body in Pain’ acknowledges that individuals will know their pain without effort if it is their own but when it is not, even with some effort they may not know the pain. She asserts that human being are unable to fathom the pain of other people. This can also be pain related to nonhuman. It is possible that human may remain unaware of the pain of nonhuman. Many may actually doubt its existence while those that apprehend only to the extent of the real pain. Nonhuman animals have been overtaxed for a long time with the task of making sense of human social affairs. Nonhuman animals symbolize different aspects in different cultures. It matters more how we as humans think nonhuman animals behave than how they behave. It is kind of humans are predisposed by certain ill motivated notions that nonhuman animals should behave as we think they should behave and not how they are made naturally to behave. Nonhuman animals to a big extent exemplify human qualities like care for young ones, family and sex complimentarity. As said earlier nonhuman animals symbolize various aspects of human life. In many cases they are cited to back our suppositions about the character of things and human relationship with natural environment even if these conjectures and meanings may in reality have nothing to do with the natural, social relations and biology of nonhuman animals. Debate about nonhuman animal behaviour always revolves around morality. It is true that morality is basically based on natural behaviour but when we start exemplifying human behaviour such as gay marriages and gender aspects we become more accommodative even when such moves are informed by wrong premise and which is totally opposite of the natural behaviour of humans. So the question is why are we so strict when it comes to nonhuman animals? When nonhuman animals are involved in homosexual behaviours we are very fast to condemn it as unnatural. It is therefore important that we are meticulous when citing the behaviour of nonhuman animals in discussing social and cultural relations of humans. In recent past, there has been a rise in feminist interest in biology and ethnology and other scholars making propositions that the behaviour study of nonhuman animals may be very crucial in explaining human structures and social relations. When trying to gather solutions to the suffering that factory farmed animals go through a number of setbacks emanate. The problem stems from the actual situation at hand, what we can describe as a mass situation (Nikki, 2012). It is a dire situation where there are so many animals in dire pain and suffering. It is an expanse of animals in horror and in almost every factory farm the story is the same. It is an artificial phenomenon that has been created and which has been considered recklessly as out of hand and unmanageable. To the general public the big number of animals stretching acres and acres of land beleaguered by fences, dander, dung and dust is just point blank impersonal. The onlookers can barely fathom the pain and suffering that these animals are enduring. Human social setting has been poised in a way that we are not able to perceive such animals as having feelings. Human deliberately decides to forget for his own advantage that these animals have been striped off their comfort and family. This is what we would call their birthright. According to Goodall (1990), humans are not unique from other non-humans as the line that divided human from the beast has currently become more and fainter. This is evidenced by the fact that some animals such as the apes have the capacity of solving simple problems via insight and the reasoning procedure. Experiments on language acquisitions have evidenced that the apes have the powers of concept forming, concept and generalization in conjunction with the capability to understand and employ conceptual symbols whilst communicating (Nikki, 2012). Why should individuals then think that these animals are nonhuman and yet they have numerous characteristics and features that are human-like? These animals should be treated with similar compassion and consideration as we treat our fellow human beings. Goodall (1990) continues to affirm that the rights of nonhuman (the great apes) should be recognized equally as the rights of human. However, in most of the nations around the globe, there is infringement of human rights and a large number of human populace is not treated with compassion and consideration. In addition to this, Goodall (1990) puts forth that in most parts of the globe, human being suffer greatly. Millions of people are homeless, starving, subjected to torture, whilst children are physically abused whilst others are forced into prostitution. With reference to this, raising awareness among humans concerning animal abuse has not been successful as people have diverted their duty to the public rather than to the animals. Individuals however should not deceive themselves into supposing that provided that there is suffering amongst human being does not make it morally good enough to make an exception to nonhuman suffering. Before slavery and slave trade was abolished, the blacks were subjected to slavery by their fellow men. The slave traders as well as the owners were aware of the pain and suffering the slaves went through but this did not matter to them (Nikki, 2012). Those who were against and called for the abolishment of slavery and slave trade can be believed to have similar emotions, capacity to suffer and intellectual capabilities. With reference to this, Goodall (1990) argues that nonhuman being (Chimpanzees) who are 99 per cent similar to human being, feel pain and suffering. As such, they should not be incarcerated, sold to persons as pets, or physically or psychologically tortured in laboratories for the benefit of science. It is the high time for the society to engage in protecting the exploitation of its closest living being. Nevertheless, how can this be done? If human being understands that it is immoral to psychologically or physically abuse thinking or rational being that has the capability of feeling pain or suffering, knowing misery or fear, then nothing would be difficult. Great apes and chimpanzees possess these capabilities as earlier stated. However, for many, this is not sufficient. Due to arrogant supposition and ignorance, most people believe that human beings are more superior to nonhuman beings in all ways. Although individuals are aware that nonhuman beings are capable of feeling pain, misery and suffering, how they are treated is not important as along as it is good for humankind. The position of the animal welfare is that human beings can employ nonhuman beings for their own purposes since they are natural or spiritual inferiors. However, there are some limitations on how individuals should treat animals. This according to animal welfare groups is that just like human beings, nonhuman beings have the capacity of suffering whether they have human like features and soul or they lack the same (Francione, 2008). Thus, individuals may use animals since they are not similar to them; nevertheless, they are obliged to treat them with kindness and compassion and should not cause them needless pain or suffering. According to Goodall (1990) nonhuman beings should be used gently. In addition to this, individuals owe a moral obligation to nonhuman beings. Pain felt by nonhuman may be either more blunt, random, and sometimes just inevitable. When we walk through a slaughter house we are able to witness the pain that animals go through and how much human have become dumb towards the feelings of nonhumans. We are left to wonder, what goes on in the nonhumans head when we are subjecting them to such levels of pain. Individuals such as Rene Descartes were of the idea that nonhumans were not sentient and therefore could not be distinguished from the inanimate things. Animals according to Descartes were not beings and as such could not experience suffering or pain and who were not conscious and therefore had no perceptual and subjective awareness (Francione, 2008). In this respect they could not be viewed as having interest, desires or wants. Descartes viewed animals as machines, the only different being that they were not manmade but were created by God. A closer scrutiny at Descartes arguments would lead us into a state where we can not be talking about animals legal or moral obligation since to him they were just like any other machine (Francione, 2008). Most scholars are dubious about the fact as to whether Descartes actually believed animals were not conscious and sentient (Francione, 2008).This is due to the fact that at that time most people in the western world acknowledged that animals had interest and were sentient. All the same humans felt that they were justified to use animals the way they felt in total disregard of their interest since animals are inferior to human being. In the first half of the 19th century the western viewed the treatment and use of nonhumans as not having any legal or moral weight. Animals were viewed as not being sentient and where people acknowledged their consciousness the used and treated them without a feeling that they owed them. It is also during the other half of the century that the world witnessed progressive movements that were meant to fight for the right of women and eradicate slavery. It is at the same time that human thinking changed and started reexamining the welfare of animals. The popular notion that animals had no legal or moral consequence was banish. Even though not everyone was in support of this view at least it laid the background for a more informed thinking about the welfare of nonhumans. Many people even after that considered animals as being outside the moral community due to the main reason that they were naturally inferior to human. Animals were viewed as partial members of the moral community and as such notions continued to get the support of many people all over the world a clear way for enactment of laws protecting the welfare of animals emerged. Even though it could be confirmed that nonhuman beings do not suffer or endure pain as much as human beings fated to same circumstances, it does not signify that nonhuman being do not feel pain or suffer greatly. This also does not offer a validation for hurting them. According to scientists, during the transportation of chickens in tracks, they usually demonstrate a degree of fear that can be compared to that stimulated by contact to an electric shock (Francione, 2008).What more should humans know? Besides, no evidence has been offered as to who (human being or nonhuman being) suffers greatly under terrible conditions. For animal activists, such phrases as debeaking, cages, and forced molting have lost their edge. Around the world, millions of animals are killed each working day and this is believed to be a new experience for every animal that is forced to endure such suffering. In conclusion, this essay has focused on Goodall affirmation that individuals are not in a position to declare that human beings suffer more terribly as compared to nonhuman beings or that the suffering of human beings matter more. Some scholars such as Goodall (1990) argue that humans are not unique from other nonhuman being and thus the same compassion and consideration shown to human being should also be shown to animals. Nonhumans have numerous characteristics and features that are human-like and as a result should be treated with similar compassion and consideration as we treat our fellow human beings. On the other hand some scholars believe that human beings suffer more as compared to the nonhuman beings and they deem the latter as things and equal them to machines. Individuals such as Rene Descartes were of the idea that nonhumans were not sentient and therefore could not be distinguished from the inanimate things. Animals according to Descartes were not beings and as such could not experience suffering or pain and who were not conscious and therefore had no perceptual and subjective awareness. With reference to this it is clear that no consensus has been reached as to who suffers more between human and nonhuman meaning that more adequate research on the topic should be carried out. References Francione, G. L. (2008). Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation. Columbia University Press. Goodall, J. (1990). Through a Window: My Thirty Years with the Chimpanzees of Gombe. Houghton Miflin, Boston. Nikki Savvides, 2012. Communication as a solution to conflict: Fundamental similarities in divergent methods of horse training. Society and Animals, 20(1): 75-90 Read More

In recent past, there has been a rise in feminist interest in biology and ethnology and other scholars making propositions that the behaviour study of nonhuman animals may be very crucial in explaining human structures and social relations. When trying to gather solutions to the suffering that factory farmed animals go through a number of setbacks emanate. The problem stems from the actual situation at hand, what we can describe as a mass situation (Nikki, 2012). It is a dire situation where there are so many animals in dire pain and suffering.

It is an expanse of animals in horror and in almost every factory farm the story is the same. It is an artificial phenomenon that has been created and which has been considered recklessly as out of hand and unmanageable. To the general public the big number of animals stretching acres and acres of land beleaguered by fences, dander, dung and dust is just point blank impersonal. The onlookers can barely fathom the pain and suffering that these animals are enduring. Human social setting has been poised in a way that we are not able to perceive such animals as having feelings.

Human deliberately decides to forget for his own advantage that these animals have been striped off their comfort and family. This is what we would call their birthright. According to Goodall (1990), humans are not unique from other non-humans as the line that divided human from the beast has currently become more and fainter. This is evidenced by the fact that some animals such as the apes have the capacity of solving simple problems via insight and the reasoning procedure. Experiments on language acquisitions have evidenced that the apes have the powers of concept forming, concept and generalization in conjunction with the capability to understand and employ conceptual symbols whilst communicating (Nikki, 2012).

Why should individuals then think that these animals are nonhuman and yet they have numerous characteristics and features that are human-like? These animals should be treated with similar compassion and consideration as we treat our fellow human beings. Goodall (1990) continues to affirm that the rights of nonhuman (the great apes) should be recognized equally as the rights of human. However, in most of the nations around the globe, there is infringement of human rights and a large number of human populace is not treated with compassion and consideration.

In addition to this, Goodall (1990) puts forth that in most parts of the globe, human being suffer greatly. Millions of people are homeless, starving, subjected to torture, whilst children are physically abused whilst others are forced into prostitution. With reference to this, raising awareness among humans concerning animal abuse has not been successful as people have diverted their duty to the public rather than to the animals. Individuals however should not deceive themselves into supposing that provided that there is suffering amongst human being does not make it morally good enough to make an exception to nonhuman suffering.

Before slavery and slave trade was abolished, the blacks were subjected to slavery by their fellow men. The slave traders as well as the owners were aware of the pain and suffering the slaves went through but this did not matter to them (Nikki, 2012). Those who were against and called for the abolishment of slavery and slave trade can be believed to have similar emotions, capacity to suffer and intellectual capabilities. With reference to this, Goodall (1990) argues that nonhuman being (Chimpanzees) who are 99 per cent similar to human being, feel pain and suffering.

As such, they should not be incarcerated, sold to persons as pets, or physically or psychologically tortured in laboratories for the benefit of science. It is the high time for the society to engage in protecting the exploitation of its closest living being. Nevertheless, how can this be done? If human being understands that it is immoral to psychologically or physically abuse thinking or rational being that has the capability of feeling pain or suffering, knowing misery or fear, then nothing would be difficult.

Read More