Due to the fact that humans have developed a considerable dominion over the earth and its other inhabitants, we are often inclined to be anthropocentric. Backed up by cultural and religious tradition, we tend to subscribe to the theory that we are distinct among earth's creatures and that this affords us a certain right in how we interact with and use the others. Even champions of animal rights, such as J.M. Coetzee's fictional novelist Elizabeth Costello, tend to subscribe to this mentality of speciesism, albeit to a different end. Costello depicts human development as a war with the other animals that was, “won […] definitively only a few hundred years ago, when we invented guns. It is only since victory became absolute that we have been able to afford to cultivate compassion” (The Lives of Animals 59). While she believes our dominance should be used to spearhead the movement of sympathetic relations with other species rather than their exploitation, the fact remains that she views us as dominant, as having won the war. Perhaps there is a good case for human ascendency: we have clearly built complex civilizations, often at the expense of other creatures and habitats, and are able, through the various technologies Costello alludes to when she says we invented guns, to subjugate other animals to our needs and fancies. The crux of the matter, however, is not so much whether we are more powerful, more abundant, or more successfully manipulative than other animals, but whether or not these qualities indicate that we are distinct in any way. Do humans form a separate, higher form of existence than other animals or, like the lion that is able to capture and control the antelope, are we merely a more powerful predator of the same mold?
...
... middle of paper ...
...ry nature of evolution.
The implications of our close relationship with earth's other creatures are not as clear. The argument is there for Elizabeth Costello, perhaps even more than she realized, that we should act compassionately towards other creatures because we are inexplicably similar in our existences. But then again, these similarities also beg the question of why we should be held to a moral standard that other animals don't always keep to in their relations with us. Ultimately, like all other “human” questions, the answers cannot be found in biology alone. Carroll quotes the psychologist Erich Fromm who said, “Man is the only animal for whom his own existence is a problem he has to solve” (250). Understanding how we developed to our current form is not the end of questions of existence, and as such, is not the end of the implications and duties thereof.
... life. What we are able to do is treat all species with respect and do what we can so that they can thrive in a world that we have altered. We can preserve a species without alienating another. Preserving the Australian fauna at the cost of some feral dogs is the choice we have to make for the good of the biological make up of that region. Dogs themselves won’t go extinct and we’ve also eliminated a threat to other species including ourselves. Species egalitarianism is an easily outmoded form of communicating treatment of species because of all the questions and speculation it ultimately raises. The equivocation of animals is absurd. We can’t compare them because of all their fundamental differences and to do so is insulting to all species that fall below the parameters we instill. Ultimately there is no possible situation in which species egalitarianism is correct.
In his book, ‘Dependant Rational Animals’, MacIntyre aims to answer why is it important for us to attend to and understand what human beings have in common with members of other intelligent animal species. MacIntyre rejects Aristotle’s biological teleology, which argues that only human beings have the ability to speak and reason and therefore our telos is to develop that reason. This is highlighted in his book when he states - ‘by distracting our attention from how much we share with certain other animal species, puts itself at off both with older Aristotelian modes of thought and with modern postDawiniam evolutionary naturalism.’ (MacIntyre, 1999, p.11) Here, MacIntyre is asserting that we overlook our similarities to other animal species due to theories such as Aristotle’s, which can now be regarded as out-dated as scientific developments allow us to know a lot more about different species. This idea has parallels with that of Singer, who we have seen also believes human characteristics such as language make us overlook our similarities with other animals. In ‘Dependent Rational Animals’ MacIntyre shows it is not human beings alone that have the ability to speak and reason. For example, dolphins can also do these things. MacIntyre dedicates a whole chapter of his book to the intelligence of dolphins, showing how important this is to his argument. He declares their ‘ratio of brain mass to body mass
Anthropocentrism has been a central belief upon which modern human society has been constructed. The current state of the world, particularly the aspects that are negative, are reflective of humans continuously acting in ways that are in the interest of our own species. As environmental issues have worsened in recent decades, a great number of environmentalists are turning away from anthropocentric viewpoints, and instead adopting more ecocentric philosophies. Although anthropocentrism seems to be decreasing in popularity due to a widespread shift in understanding the natural world, philosopher William Murdy puts forth the argument that anthropocentrism still has relevancy in the context of modern environmental thought. In the following essay, I will explain Murdy’s interpretation of anthropocentrism and why he believes it to be an acceptable point of
Further still Mayr makes the attempt at understanding the phenomena of why man cannot agree to having evolved from the same common ancestor as the wild animal the chimpanzee. It may seem that, according to Mayr, that man's own inability to come to terms with his own evolution, stems from a feeling of not wanting to be reduced to just another animal in the chain of life. For hundreds of years, as Mayr examines, religion after religion has always placed man on some sort of pedestal, superior to all other species. And when Darwin confronted the world with possibly another truth, he shattered man's perception of himself. Even today, a hundred years after Darwin first challenged the accepted order of man as a divine being, Mayr still raises controversy in the debate over man as being just another animal undergoing a constant evolutionary change like all other animals.
One of the biggest ideals shown throughout history is the need for power and dominance. Whether it comes from Hitler taking over Germany and trying to enact a full-scale genocide of an entire race or a Savanna baboon alpha male being challenged by a headstrong youth for dictatorship of the tribe; the need to be the one who calls the shots will always remain an instinctual thought hardwired in our brain. To some this comparison may seem off based and farfetched in regards to similarity, however looking at Sapolsky’s research, the dominance in the animal kingdom can get rather similar. In a quote from his book A Primate’s Memoirs, Robert states, “Solomon entered the fight, ably taking on both while they were preoccupied and exhausted. Result: number 203 dead, Aaron badly injured, Solomon settling in to his reign” (Pg 22-23). The clichéd quote of “all is fair in love and war” could not sum up this act of social dominance any better. Solomon, who was number 3 in the chain of command, waited on the arduous fight of the two contenders to wage on...
Goodall argues that her readers have an ethical obligation to protect animals from suffering, but she also implies that it might be necessary sometimes to abandon that obligation. She points out that animals share similar traits with human beings: they have a capacity for certain human emotions, and they may be capable of legitimate friendship. Goodall’s evidence for this claim is an anecdote from her research. She recounts that one chimpanzee in her study, named David Greybeard, “gently squeezed [her] hand” when she offered him food (62). Appealing to readers’ emotions, Goodall hopes to persuade readers that the chimp is “sociable” and “sentient,” or feeling (62). According to Goodall’s logic, if researchers are careful to avoid tests that cause human suffering, they should also be careful to avoid tests that cause suffering for other life forms.
Therefore, it is because of our moral duty to all other TCL’s that humans are superior to all other Teleological Centers of Life. Only humans, because of moral agency, are capable of recognizing that all TCL’s have a good of their own. Organisms that lack moral agency cannot understand or appreciate the inherent worth of other beings. As a result, they cannot adopt the attitude of respect for nature. It would be incomprehensible for a plant to understand what is good for a human. Likewise, to believe that a tree or blade of grass can respect nature in the same capacity as a human is ridiculous.
In the article of "Why do species matters?" by Lilly-Marlene Russow, the author establish the desire of species,, why individuals tend to treat living being (creature) distinctively in light of the fact that they are an alternate animal groups; and furthermore treat certain creatures of an animal groups with more thought. She additionally emphasize on the issue which is figuring out what commitments a man may have toward one creature over another.Russow argues that one commitment toward animals for some is to secure declining or endangered species, yet this does not really stretch out to the whole types of that animal. As indicated
“The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality.”(Arthur Schopenhauer)
... God and how He is related to us – how powerful He is to make everything in this world works; how He made everything almost perfect for us. I have also learned that believing He exist, makes me understand more about His existence, just like what St. Anselm said. I believe that believing He exists, is what makes Him exist. For me, Yes, God really exist.
He provides us with a virtue ethics approach toward the natural world, how we should act toward other living things must reflect the equal worth each individual possesses. While Taylor admits “such a belief system cannot be proven to be true” it does provide a “coherent, unified, and rationally acceptable picture of a total world” (p.632), and to this end, I believe he was successful. While his species egalitarianism goes against our moral experience, especially as it pertains to nonsentiant beings, it does give us an alternative position to anthropocentrism. The idea that our respect for other species should not be contingent upon their relationship to
This view, that humans are of special moral status, is constantly attempted to be rationalized in various ways. One such defense is that we are not morally wrong to prioritize our needs before the needs of nonhuman animals for “the members of any species may legitimately give their fellows more weight than they give members of other species (or at least more weight than a neutral view would grant them). Lions, too, if they were moral agents, could not then be criticized for putting other lions first” (Nozick, 79). This argument, that we naturally prefer our own kind, is based on the same fallacy used by racists while defending their intolerant beliefs and therefore should be shown to have no logical merit.
“The relationship of homo sapiens to the other animals is one of unremitting exploitation. We employ their work; we eat and wear them. We exploit them to serve our superstitions: whereas we used to sacrifice them to our gods and tear out their entrails in order to foresee the future, we now sacrifice them to science, and experiment on their entrail in the hope — or on the mere off chance — that we might thereby see a little more clearly into the present.” Brigid Brophy stated this quote in The Sunday Times in the year of 1965. It is a common belief that Brophy’s article may have been the spark for the animal rights movement. The Animal Rights Movement is the social movement that I have decided to write about. It was believed to have started
For example, chapter 4 brings up the question of how much Homo Sapiens played a role in the extinction of most of the large marsupial mammals in Australia. The evidence is presented that, after Homo Sapiens arrived on the continent of Australia, “of the twenty-four Australian animal species weighing 100 pounds or more, twenty-three became extinct” (65). This is the type of evidence that cannot be disputed. It is a literal fact that certain areas with large mammal populations experienced a decrease in those populations upon the arrival of Homo Sapiens. Thus it is posited that humans have been a strong antagonist to other species for many thousands of
Evolutionary theory throws humans into a tizzy. Driven by the need to amass knowledge, we find ourselves surging forward into the exploration of a story where the more we know, the less we can feature ourselves. Eminent evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr contends that anthropocentrism and belief in evolution by natural selection are mutually exclusive (Mayr 1972). In other words, the Darwinian story of biological evolution rejects the notion of progress and replaces it with directionless change, thereby subverting the conception of human superiority on a biological scale toward perfection. Evolution by natural selection undermines the idea that humans are the culmination and ultimate beneficiaries of all nature. However, to say that anthropocentrism necessarily dissolves in the rising tide of evolutionary theory is to ignore the ways in which human centered humanness plays an intriguing role in evolution.