The development of this course has been funded by the Curriculum Resource Center (“CRC”) at the Central European University (“CEU”),
whose programs are partially funded by the Higher Education Support Program (“HESP”). The opinions expressed herein are the author’s own
and do not necessarily express the views of CEU.
Lecturer:
Host Institution:
Course Title:
Year of CDC Grant:
Artis Svece
University of Latvia
Human and Animal relationship:its cultural,
cognitive and ethical aspects
2002 / 2003
Course description:
Animals are good food for thought. When we try to understand the way we, humans, think,
it’s always necessary to look for some real examples of reasoning, because they can reveal
things that, for example, exercises in an ordinary logic book never will. Any attempt to
characterize human and animal relationship leads to questions about the consistency of
human reasoning, the double standards we apply and bad faith that influences our judgment.
It also poses a question of philosophers’ capability to avoid the traps human mind is prone
to fall into. One can certainly ask whether philosophers’ views on the human – animal
distinction and often simplistic understanding of animal mind are not influenced by certain
assumptions that philosophers should have examined but, for a long time at least, didn’t.
Secondly, philosophical analysis of the way humans perceive, interpret, treat and interact
with animals leads to fundamental questions that are important for philosophy beyond the
seemingly narrow question of human and animal relationship. What does it mean to be
human? What is mind? Who can have rights? What are the limits of our responsibilities and
compassion?
Finally, the problem of human and animal relationship is important because since the 1970s
in contemporary philosophy, science and public opinion, there seems to be a trend towards
the re-evaluation of this relationship. One can observe shifts in the scientific discourse
related to animals and a growing awareness of suffering inflicted on animals by humans. The
course aims to reveal the possibilities philosophy can offer for a contemporary discussion of
issues related to the understanding and treatment of animals.
Content of the course
Lecture 1: Beliefs about animals
Secondary reading:
1. Peter Singer “Man’s Dominion… a short history of speciesism” in Animal
Liberation (New York: Ecco, 2002), pp. 185-212;
2. Bernard E. Rollin “Consciousness Regained: ethology and beyond” in The
Unheeded Cry (Ames: Iowa State UP, 1998), pp. 251-272.
Seminar 2: Of pigs and pets
Questions for the seminar:
1. What is the difference in the treatment of pigs and pets by humans?
2. What beliefs do about pigs and pets determine the way they are treated?
3. What is the nature of the paradox Serpell describes in the end of the text?
Compulsory reading:
James Serpell “Of Pigs and Pets” in In the Company of Animals (Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 1996), Reader, pp. 3-12.
Lecture 3: Animal-machine
Compulsory reading:
Rene Descartes Discourse on the Method (Riga: Zvaigzne, 1978), Reader, pp. 13-15.
Secondary reading:
1. Rene Descartes Letters in D. M. Rosenthal, ed. The Nature of Mind (Oxford: Oxford
UP, 1991), Reader, pp. 16-17.
2. Stuart Elliott Guthrie “Anthropomorphism: A Definition and A Theory” in R. W.
Mitchell et al., eds. Anthropomorphism, Anecdotes, and Animals (New York: SUNY, 1997),
Reader, pp. 18-22.
3. Hank Davis “Animal Cognition versus Animal Thinking: The Anthropomorphic
Error” in R. W. Mitchell et al., eds. Anthropomorphism, Anecdotes, and Animals (New York:
SUNY, 1997), pp. 335-347.
Seminar 4: Intentional strategy
Questions for the seminar:
1. What is a predictive strategy and what kind of predictive strategies does Dennett
mention?
2. What is intentional strategy? When can we use it, and when cannot?
3. Are there beings that truly have intentional states? What is Dennett’s view on this?
Compulsory reading:
Daniel Dennett “True Believers: The Intentional Strategy and Why It Works” in
David M. Rosenthal, ed. The Nature of Mind (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1991), Reader, pp. 27-42.
Secondary reading:
1. Terrel Miedaner “The Soul of the Mark III Beast” in D. R. Hofstadter and D. C.
Dennett The Mind's I: Fantasies and Reflections of Self and Soul (London: Penguin, 1981), Reader,
23-26.
2. Daniel Dennett “Reflections: Real Patterns, Deeper Facts, and Empty Questions”
in The Intentional Stance (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2002), pp. 37-42.
3. Daniel Dennett “Intentional Strategy in Cognitive Ethology” in The Intentional
Stance (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2002), pp. 237-286.
Lecture 5: Thought and language
Secondary reading:
1. Norman Malcolm “Thoughtless Brutes” in David M. Rosenthal, ed. The Nature of
Mind (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1991), Reader, pp. 56-59.
2. Matthew Senior “’When the Beast Spoke’: Animal Speech and Classical Reason in
Descartes and Fontaine” in Jennifer Ham and Matthew Senior, eds. Animal Acts (London:
Routledge, 1997), Reader, pp. 43-55.
Seminar 6: Rational animals
Questions for the seminar:
1. What are the criteria of rationality Davidson advances in his article?
2. Why does Davidson think that one cannot have propositional attitudes (belief and
surprise) unless one can use language?
Compulsory reading:
Donald Davidson “Rational Animals” (Dialectica, Vol. 36, No. 4 (1982)), Reader, pp.
60-67.
Secondary reading:
1. Norman Malcolm “Thoughtless Brutes” in David M. Rosenthal, ed. The Nature of
Mind (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1991), Reader, pp. 56-59.
2. Daniel Dennett “The Role of Language in Intelligence” in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea
(New York: Touchstone, 1995), Reader, pp. 68-74.
Lecture 7: Animal consciousness
Secondary reading:
1. Donald R. Griffin “In Favour of Animal Consciousness” and “Objections and
Their Limitations” in Animal Minds: Beyond Cognition to Consciousness (Chicago: Chicago UP,
2001), pp. 1-36.
2. Terrel Miedaner “The Soul of the Mark III Beast” in D. R. Hofstadter and D. C.
Dennett The Mind's I: Fantasies and Reflections of Self and Soul (London: Penguin, 1981), Reader,
23-26.
3. Collin Allen and Marc Bekoff “Consciousness: Essential or Dispensable?” in
Species of Mind: The Philosophy and Biology of Cognitive Ethology (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The
MIT Press, 1997), pp. 139-159.
Seminar 8: What is it like to be an animal?
Questions for the seminar:
1. What does Nigel mean by “what it is like to be somebody” and why does he think
there is something like that?
2. According to Nagel, why don’t we know what it is like to be a bat?
3. Your version of what it is like to be a dog (cat). What can we know and what
cannot about what it is like to be a dog (cat)?
Compulsory reading:
Thomas Nagel „What Is It Like to Be a Bat?” (The Philosophical Review LXXXIII, 4
(October 1974)), Reader, pp. 75-84.
Secondary reading:
1. Douglas Hofstadter “Reflections” in D. R. Hofstadter and D. C. Dennett The
Mind's I: Fantasies and Reflections of Self and Soul (London: Penguin, 1981), Reader, 85-91.
2. Kennett Shapiro “A Phenomenological Approach to the Study of nonhuman
Animals” in R. W. Mitchell et al., eds. Anthropomorphism, Anecdotes, and Animals (New York:
SUNY, 1997), Reader, pp. 92-101.
Lecture 9: Animals and ethics
Secondary reading:
1. Andris Rubenis “The Nature and Objectives of Practical Ethics” and “Ecology
and Ethics” in Ethics in the 20th Century: Practical Ethics (in Latvian, Riga: Zvaigzne ABC,
1996), pp. 3-19, 123-170.
2. Tom Regan “Ethical Thinking and Theory” in The Case for Animal Rights (Berkeley:
California UP, 1983), pp. 121-149.
Lecture 10: Ethical stances I
Secondary reading:
1. Lori Gruen “Animals” in Peter Singer, ed. A Companion to Ethics (London:
Blackwell, 1993), pp. 343-353.
2. Artis Svece “Ironic Reflections on Human /Animal Distinction” (in Latvian,
Kentaurs No. 25, (2001)), pp. 108-119.
3. Donald R. Griffin “The Philosophical and Ethical Significance of Animal
Consciousness” in Animal Minds: Beyond Cognition to Consciousness (Chicago: Chicago UP,
2001), pp. 252-269.
Lecture 11: Ethical stances II
Secondary reading:
1. Immanuel Kant “Lectures on Ethics”, Reader, pp. 102-103.
2. Tom Regan “Indirect Duty Views” and “Direct Duty Views” in The Case for
Animal Rights (Berkeley: California UP, 1983), Reader, pp. 150-231.
Seminar 12: Tools for research
Questions for the seminar:
1. How does Singer justify the necessity for “animal liberation”? Why is his argument
utilitarian?
2. What are his views on experimenting on animals? What arguments does he
provide for his position? Please, evaluate his arguments.
3. What would be your arguments for and against experimenting on animals?
Compulsory reading:
Peter Singer “Animal Liberation” (in Latvian, Kentaurs No. 25, (2001)), Reader, pp.
104-110.
Secondary reading:
1. Bernard E. Rollin “Animal Pain: The Ideology Cashed Out” in The Unheeded Cry
(Ames: Iowa State UP, 1998), pp. 107-134.
2. Peter Singer “Tools for Research…” in Animal Liberation (New York: Ecco,
2002), pp. 25-94.
Seminar 13: Vegetarianism
Questions for the seminar:
1. What kind of ethical stances does Regan describe in his article? What are his
objections against utilitarianism?
2. How does Regan justify ascribing to animals inherent value, and rights that ensue?
Please, evaluate his arguments.
3. Is there ethical justification for killing animals for food? What arguments would
provide utilitarian and representative rights theory?
Compulsory reading:
Tom Regan “The Case for Animal Rights” in Peter Singer ed. In Defence of Animals
(Oxford: Blackwell, 1985), Reader, pp. 111-120.
Secondary reading:
1. Tom Regan “Implications of the Rights View” in The Case for Animal Rights
(Berkeley: California UP, 1983), Reader, pp. 121-136.
2. Peter S. Wentz “An Ecological Argument for Vegetarianism” in Kerry S. Walters
and Lisa Portmess, eds. Ethical Vegetarianism: From Pythagoras to Peter Singer (New York:
SUNY, 1999), pp. 189-202.
3. Peter Singer “Down on the Factory Farm…” in Animal Liberation (New York:
Ecco, 2002), pp. 95-158.
Seminar 14: Limits of humanism
Questions for the seminar:
1. What changes does Baudrillard observe in the history of human and animal
relationship?
2. Why does he criticize sentimentality and demands for “humane” treatment of
animals?
3. What similarities does Baudrillard see in the treatment of animals and people in
contemporary society?
Compulsory reading:
Jean Baudrillard “Beasts” from Simulacres and Simulation (in Latvian, Riga: Omnia
Mea, 2000), Reader, pp. 137-142.
Secondary reading:
1. Arnold Arluke and Clinton R. Sanders “Boundary Work in Nazi Germany” in
Regarding Animals (Animals, Culture, and Society) (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1996),
pp. 132-166.
2. Joyce E. Salisbury “Human Beasts and Bestial Humans in the Middle Ages” in
Jennifer Ham and Matthew Senior, eds. Animal Acts (London: Routledge, 1997), Reader, pp.
143-149.
Lecture 15: Human/animal distinction
Compulsory reading:
Mara Rubene “Something More Than Just A Meal” (in Latvian, Kentaurs No. 25,
(2001)), Reader, pp. 150-156.
Secondary reading:
Martin Heidegger “Letter on Humanism” (in Latvian, Gramata No. 10, (1991)), pp.
18-41.
Seminar 16: Carnivorous animal
Questions for the seminar:
1. What does Derrida mean by the notions of “carnivorous culture” and the
“sacrificial structure” of its discourse?
2. Why does Derrida claim that our culture cannot stop being carnivorous and
develop “responsible” human and animal relationship? Why cannot vegetarianism be an
escape from carnivorous culture?
3. Can human and animal relations be different? What can be changed and what
cannot? Why?
Compulsory reading:
Jacques Derrida, an interview: “’Eating Well’ or the Calculation of the Subject” in
Eduardo Cadava et al., eds. Who Comes After the Subject (London: Routledge, 1991), Reader,
pp. 164-168.
Secondary reading:
1. David Wood “Comment ne pas manger – Deconstruction and Humanism” in Peter
Steeves, ed. Animal Others: On Ethics, Ontology and Animal Life (New York: SUNY, 1999),
Reader, pp. 169-179.
2. Jacques Derrida, an interview: “’Eating Well’ or the Calculation of the Subject” in
Eduardo Cadava et al., eds. Who Comes After the Subject (London: Routledge, 1991), Reader,
pp. 157-163.
Requirements and grading:
In order to complete the course successfully students should attend classes, actively
participate in seminars, and write the final essay.
In the final essay students should demonstrate a capacity to express themselves clearly, to
justify their claims, to think critically and analyze issues related to the topic of their essay, as
well as adequately use the knowledge of the concepts and arguments discussed during the
course. By the fourth week, they should have chosen and have told the instructor the topic
for their essays. On the tenth week of the course, they have to submit a short draft of the
essay (approx. 2-3 pages). At the end of the semester, they submit the final essay (10 pages).
The grade consists of the grades for attendance (20%), participation at seminars (40%), and
the final essay (40%). Students who have successfully completed the course receive 2 credit
points.
Topics for the essay:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Paradoxes and inconsistencies in human and animal relationship
Cognitive aspects of human and animal relationship
Ethical aspects of human and animal relationship
Possibility and conditions of human and animal communication
Animal mind
Animal consciousness
Animal-machine
Do animals think?
Language as a criterion of rationality and the problem of animal
mind
Do animals have intentions?
Philosophical problems of the interpretation of animal behavior
Importance for human/animal distinction for human selfunderstanding
Anthropomorphisation and the problem of animal mind
(rationality, consciousness)
Anthropomorphisation and ethical status of animals
Anthropomorphisation of animals and human self-understanding
Depiction of animals in art (literature) and human selfunderstanding
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Ethical status of animals
Ethical status of animals and ethical theories of the 20th century
Can cruelty towards animals be justified?
Is humane treatment possible without radical changes in our
perception of them?
Is humane treatment of animals dependent on rational arguments
and ethical principles?
Animal consciousness (pain) as a necessary condition for the
ethical status of animals
Ethical aspects of vegetarianism
Ethical aspects of experimenting on animals
Ethical aspects of zoological gardens
Ethical aspects of hunting
Ethical aspects of animal farming
Animal as the Other
Human/animal distinction
Human animal (human monster)