(Singer, 78, 1st Paragraph)
I think that this entire reading was extremely interesting. I have never really put any deep consideration into the rights of animals. I really found interesting some of the arguments such as using intelligence as a boundary for determining equality. For this reason I almost used (Singer, 75, 2nd Paragraph) because I had one of those enlightening moments reading it and and having it cause some sort of distress in my mind because of how it has shaken some of my preconceived notions. However, as I read on I was really grabbed by the entry that I wrote. I was somewhat intrigued by how our rationalization for human dignity has changed but at the core there is still this idea that every individual has some form of intrinsic worth. Extending each person some set of unalienable rights is essential to have a just peaceful humanity. However, I think what this passage fails to recognize is that we do condemn humans who break the moral laws that we have established. In an ideal world no human would be above these rights, and when any human violates these rights they are subject to punishment. We subject them to some form of suffering that has been agreed upon (however, the governor of Mississippi may disagree with me here). So I now would like to consider the last line of the paragraph of this text:
'It is only when we think of humans as nor more than a small subgroup of all the beings that inhabit our planet that we may realize that in elevating our own species we are at the same time lowering the relative status of all other species.'
I agree whole heartedly that this is certainly the case in our society. We as a society have been able to rationalize ourselves as a superior species and been able to use this as perhaps a rationalization for anytime that we feel the need to exploit animals for their instrumental value. I ask now though should we consider all animals to act under the same rigid guidelines how would the world work? If we were to hold on a similar ground all animals capable of suffering. Well I can tell you it would be a chaotic world, because animals are violent. The only reason that domesticated dogs and cats and in the manner that they do is because as humans we have been able to make them into docile creatures by providing them with food rather than forcing them to acquire it themselves. Now if we were to create a universal set of laws that would condemn any animal for taking the life of any other animal that can experience suffering. We would be punishing every animal that is a carnivore and what do we do at this point? Detain these animals as we would a human and put them into the same conditions that Singer is condemning humans for in the first place. Which makes me consider perhaps that there is this idea that Pico suggests of a 'Great Chain of Being'. The idea of animal liberation I think then becomes somewhat of a complex issue. Perhaps the reason that we lower the relative status of other animals because in some degree they do have a lower level of consciousness. This is not to say that I think that some animals are treated inappropriately because as we have elaborated on heavily already with the issue of causing animals pain by eating them. However, we live in a world where humans are committing atrocities against other humans daily if we truly care about liberation of animals should we not seek to end injustices amongst our own? I also urge us to examine the time frame in which this piece was written, we had just gotten out of War in Vietnam, we were still involved in a Cold War with the Soviet Union, and there was even a genocide existing in Cambodia. Given the climate at this current time I would argue that Singer writing this paper could be received as trivial, arguing for the rights of animals when it would seem as a country that we have unresolved issues granting rights to our own people (i.e. the draft for Vietnam War). I realize that the end of this may have gone slightly off topic but it I think it is important to acknowledge what current events are happening at anytime that choose to evaluate any piece of classic literature
I think you made a very good point when you created a scenario where humans and animals were deemed equivalent. Placing a bear in jail as you would a human struck me funny. I also find it strange that Singer was so concerned with the rights of animals when human rights were being violated at the same time. Perhaps speciesism is not all that bad to a certain extent. It would seem outrageous to attempt to gain rights for a particular species of animals while thousands of humans are at war.
ReplyDeleteYou didn't go off topic at all. You've made some very valid points in your argument, including your conclusion. I strongly agree with your argument regarding a universal law that also governs wild animals. I feel that Singer's argument does lack in his defense of his benchmark for equality. However, I do feel it should play a role in the way we treat nonhuman organisms. I also found your statement "Perhaps the reason that we lower the relative status of other animals because in some degree they do have a lower level of consciousness" to be very intriguing. There also differences in the level of consciousness between humans. How do you feel we should deal with this?
ReplyDeleteOverall I really enjoyed reading your response. You made some very strong and valid points. :)
YOu had some really great points. I agree with Asa, your bear in jail example was really funny. And i think that it provided some really good back up for your post. I definitely never thought of it like that but when you apply exaggerated examples to what you are writing with the purpose of strengthening your argument, i think it is really effective
ReplyDeleteYour post started off well discussing the dignity of man and it's progression. As well ass pointing out where Singer fails to mention the repercussions of human actions in society. Your use of wild animals as examples was witty and thought provoking. Humans are guilty of arrogance reguarding our status in the world, but I agree with Singer that the equality of animals to end unnecesary suffering is morally relevant, although to what level of equality is still debatable. I think your acknowlegement of the current events at the time of publication is good. I also slightly disagree with your position on animals rights being some what irrelevant considering all the human to human injustices. In a time with so much violence and war I think we can become numb to hearing about the number of casualties, especially if we are not witnessing it first-hand. Sometimes we need to see our actions our philosophies from a different peerspective. This paper makes us think from a different perspective to then do an inventory of how we operate towards animals, humans, and our basic principles.
ReplyDelete