Jackie Pendleton December 7, 2014 Professor Drexler PHIL 2300 Moral Consideration of Animals What makes humans the correct species to choose the rights of an animal? Is it the dominance they possess over the animal world? The intelligence that humans possess? Their ability to reason and will? What about their ability to experience suffering and pain, love and happiness? Who is to say that only humans possess these qualities? To say that animals do not deserve moral consideration and respect, and the right to that of humans is to say that man doesn’t need to breathe in order to live. Koko the gorilla is, in many ways, a prodigy of her own species. A gorilla born in captivity and surrounded by humans, she has the ability to understand, display emotions, learn, and project thoughts and ideas. In Koko` story, she was able to learn and understand sign language as a means of communicating to her human companions. Not only was Koko able to learn sign language and communicate through it, but she was also able to show her depth of intelligence by creating different signs for words and concepts she was trying to get across to her human friends. When she reached sexual maturity, she used this sign language to display thoughts and emotional want for a baby of her own. Koko deserves the same moral consideration provided to humans by humans. There are several theorists who support the rights of animals and believe they deserve moral consideration. Having somewhat varying beliefs and theories, Peter Singer and Tom Regan are two that explain and provide insight with regard to this. Regan explains his theory on animal rights by discussing an animal being “the subject of life.” Here he states that being a subject of life is more than just being alive and breathing, but it is requires being able to experience that life and having the sense in knowing what is going on around it; what is providing happiness verses Jackie Pendleton December 7, 2014 Professor Drexler PHIL 2300 sadness, and what is provoking those emotions. He adds that even it is born into a situation that is unhappy and miserable and has never known a different life, the animal is aware that he is uncomfortable and is able to sense by instinct that this is not a respectable situation. With regard to Koko, there is definitely sufficient evidence that she has “subject of life” qualities. A good example of this “subject of life” concept would be the controversy of the Orca Whales that are held captive in the SeaWorld Parks in several states of the United States. While one might say that whales whom are born into the life of SeaWorld immediately are subjected to the tanks of salt water, and perform in front of hundreds of people 2-3 times a day “don’t know any other way of life” and they are perfectly content, how does one explain their consistent aggressive, and unhappy behaviors? Trainers who are thought to be the whales’ companions and life-long friends, suddenly and unexpectedly become targeted victims of violent attacks. The whales are being fed throughout the day, and are more than taken care of in the sense of hunger needs. Consequently, they are not attacking and consuming humans on the basis of instinctual hunger, they are attacking in response to negative emotions and instincts. It is here that Regan may say that this animal is a “subject of life” and is very well aware that it is uncomfortable, unhappy, and that the animal deserves to be treated with respect, and not utilized as a tool for entertainment and financial profit. Peter Singer draws on utilitarian accounts with regard to animals and moral consideration. He states that what matters morally is their ability to feel pleasure and pain. He states, “If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering—in so far as rough comparisons can be made—of any other Jackie Pendleton December 7, 2014 Professor Drexler PHIL 2300 being. If a being is not capable of suffering, or of experiencing enjoyment or happiness, there is nothing to be taken into account.” (Singer, All Animals Are Equal p. 107) Singer would accept Koko into his morale circle; he only draws the line at animals belonging in the moral circle if they cannot feel suffering or pain. Another good point of view with regard to animal respect and moral consideration is that of Paul Taylor. A philosopher best known for his book “Respect for Nature,” Taylor argues that “superiority only applies to humans” is Anthropocentric. Meaning, that if something is in the center, it deems to be more important and that perspective is the most valuable. To place humans in the center as the most valuable is unjustifiable because that is coming from a human’s point of view and is essentially biased. In his text, “Respect for Nature,” Taylor states, “…why should standards that are based on human values be assumed to be the only valid criteria of merit and hence the only true signs of superiority?” (Taylor, Respect for nature p. 80) Taylor provides good reflection on the concept of humans choosing the rights of non-human animals and how it is unwarrantable. Rene Descartes, a philosopher from the 1600s, had a very different view from that of Singer or Regan on what animals deserved as far as moral consideration was concerned. He believed that animals did not think and were not conscious. He viewed them as machines; “brutes” to be mastered, manipulated, and used for various reasons at the will of a human. To say that Koko was a thinking, emotion-driven animal would have not been on his agenda. Descartes also believed that because animals were “machines” that in many ways are similar to the human body, they were a good tool to learn from by studying theirs. This meant that he showed support for animal experimentation. It is easy to consider if Descartes theories and concepts were due to lack of Jackie Pendleton December 7, 2014 Professor Drexler PHIL 2300 experience and the progression of modern society. It could be possible that because he lived and researched so long ago, he was not able to see the many developments of animal intelligence, such as Koko the gorilla, take place. While there are many beliefs, theories, concepts, and conclusions in relation to the rights of animals and moral consideration on their behalf, I believe I identify the most with Tom Regan. I find that I agree with many of his concepts, from his “subject of life” explanation, to his insights on animal experimentation. I do not believe in the use and practices of animal experimentation. I believe that utilizing animals to test chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and any other tool looking to be sold on the market is morally wrong. I don’t not have any respect for the so called “benefits” or “what we can learn” from the experimentation mentality. I cannot grasp the concept of making a living, breathing animal suffer for experimental, medical, and financial gain. With the progress and technology human intelligence has created, there are other ways to test products needing to be established. I especially agree with Regan`s points and his critique regarding the Cruelty Account of animal suffering. Even though a human does not like or take joy in harming the animal they are experimenting on, it doesn’t mean that animal was not harmed, suffered, or wasn’t killed as a result. What matters was that the rights of animal was violated and the animal was not treated with respect and dignity. In the case of Koko the gorilla, no doubt does she belong in the moral circle. Her capacity of consciousness and reason to will abilities are astounding and completely transparent. While humans do play a very large and domineering role on the planet, there still needs to be consideration of all living things. We as a society, nation, and world have an obligation to the living organisms on this planet to treat them with respect, dignity, and care. Even if the subject Jackie Pendleton December 7, 2014 Professor Drexler PHIL 2300 lacks the ability to recognize its rights, such as a tree or small insect, it still warrants those rights and considerations.