Philosophical Reflections on Animal Rights
For a long time, ethical understanding has been based on a human-centered approach. This approach assumes that humans have intrinsic value, while other living beings exist solely as tools for humans. Throughout the history of philosophy, ancient Greek philosophers and enlightenment thinkers built their ethical frameworks on this foundation. For example, when we look at Descartes, we see the assumption that animals are merely machines. This claim suggests that animals do not experience pain like we do and, similar to other machines we possess, can be used as tools. However, over the past century, animal rights movements have grown and, in the last 30 years, have gained significant momentum. Additionally, various legal proposals have been made regarding animal rights. At this point, the question arises as to whether it is possible to find a philosophical basis for animals in ethical terms. Several thinkers have attempted to establish such a foundation. Although not entirely an advocate for animal rights, Bentham's views represent the initial search for a positive basis and argue that animals should be evaluated within the scope of our ethical behaviors. His views are based on sensitivity. Bentham sees expressing that animals are sentient as an expression of being conscious of pain and pleasure. Moreover, it forms a basis for being conscious of something more broadly. According to Peter Singer, Bentham's views represent the first positive development in animal rights. However, Singer considers his views inadequate despite being a positive development. Peter Singer has a utilitarian understanding. He argues that interests should be distributed equally. However, this equal distribution is not in the classical sense of equality but rather the idea of equal consideration. He believes that such an evaluation should be made in ethical terms. He justifies this by giving an example that a slap on a baby's face and a slap on a horse cannot be considered the same. In this case, the pain they would feel is not the same. However, based on this, he prepares a foundation for sensitivity and consciousness. For example, he states that hitting a rock would not hurt the rock. This grounds our moral actions on beings that can experience pain and pleasure and benefit from it. Establishing such a basis determines upon whom our moral principles are valid.
In this regard, thinkers with a human-centered ethical perspective argue that the sensitivity and consciousness of animals are not sufficient to include them in the scope of our moral actions because the foundation of ethical action towards another human is based on belonging to the same species. The fact that people's behavior towards their family members is more sensitive and genuine, but not the same towards a stranger, is given as an example.
Peter Singer responds to this criticism through the marginal cases argument. The marginal cases argument generally states that the characteristics possessed by humans are not applicable to every individual. For example, if we say that a human is a rational being, it would not be a universally valid proposition because there are mentally irrational humans. Peter Singer argues from this standpoint that some animals share certain characteristics with certain humans. And at this point, Peter Singer brings up the contradiction between the moral wrongness of killing that human and the lack of problem in killing that animal from the perspective of consistency.
Peter Singer also states that a justification based on speciesism is not possible. Because, as in the case of people being more sensitive to their families as mentioned above, it will not be possible to draw a line between humans either. He emphasizes that the boundary drawn between animals and humans can vary in the face of various events. The atrocities committed by the Nazis during World War II serve as an example of this. The issue of who ethical actions apply to will become blurred regarding a person's skin color, beliefs, and many other aspects. Peter Singer's reason for drawing a boundary is to determine who ethical principles concern, based on the ability to possess interests, feel pain, and pleasure.
Tom Regan also brings criticism to speciesism from similar perspectives. For example, we generally do not use animals as subjects in language like we do with a person. According to Tom Regan, one of the fundamental reasons for making this distinction is linguistic inadequacy. At this point, Tom Regan uses the expression "subject of a life." He states that this expression would attribute intrinsic value to both animals and humans.
Speciesism, sensitivity, consciousness, and the subject of a life form the two fundamental components of animal rights and ethics. Through these two aspects, they have criticized the human-centered ethical understanding that has been going on for centuries from various angles.
In this regard, thinkers with a human-centered ethical perspective argue that the sensitivity and consciousness of animals are not sufficient to include them in the scope of our moral actions because the foundation of ethical action towards another human is based on belonging to the same species. The fact that people's behavior towards their family members is more sensitive and genuine, but not the same towards a stranger, is given as an example.
Peter Singer responds to this criticism through the marginal cases argument. The marginal cases argument generally states that the characteristics possessed by humans are not applicable to every individual. For example, if we say that a human is a rational being, it would not be a universally valid proposition because there are mentally irrational humans. Peter Singer argues from this standpoint that some animals share certain characteristics with certain humans. And at this point, Peter Singer brings up the contradiction between the moral wrongness of killing that human and the lack of problem in killing that animal from the perspective of consistency.
Peter Singer also states that a justification based on speciesism is not possible. Because, as in the case of people being more sensitive to their families as mentioned above, it will not be possible to draw a line between humans either. He emphasizes that the boundary drawn between animals and humans can vary in the face of various events. The atrocities committed by the Nazis during World War II serve as an example of this. The issue of who ethical actions apply to will become blurred regarding a person's skin color, beliefs, and many other aspects. Peter Singer's reason for drawing a boundary is to determine who ethical principles concern, based on the ability to possess interests, feel pain, and pleasure.
Tom Regan also brings criticism to speciesism from similar perspectives. For example, we generally do not use animals as subjects in language like we do with a person. According to Tom Regan, one of the fundamental reasons for making this distinction is linguistic inadequacy. At this point, Tom Regan uses the expression "subject of a life." He states that this expression would attribute intrinsic value to both animals and humans.
Speciesism, sensitivity, consciousness, and the subject of a life form the two fundamental components of animal rights and ethics. Through these two aspects, they have criticized the human-centered ethical understanding that has been going on for centuries from various angles.
Comment and Evaluation
The ideas surrounding animal rights are crucial in terms of serving societal conscience. Animals are the first living beings to which humans can display tendencies of violence and psychopathy. In this regard, establishing a moral ground and granting rights to animals also contribute to creating a healthier society. However, when evaluated from a philosophical perspective, it can be seen that certain problems arise. Firstly, the first problem is the boundary set between humans and animals. Arguments are based on the characteristics that make a human, and it is concluded that animals should be morally evaluated as equals because they are closer to animals in terms of lacking these characteristics. However, the real problem here is the presupposition that there is a specific set of characteristics that define a human. When ethically considered, it is not argued that moral principles should be applied solely based on possessing these characteristics. The essence of the matter is being human. For example, it does not seem possible to make an inference that street-living, four-legged animals, namely cats and dogs, are the same or have the same moral relevance. Therefore, an argument developed by equating mentally or physically disabled humans with animals through ethical relevance does not seem to dismiss the issue of speciesism. Even if some animals have higher cognitive levels and more physical abilities than certain humans, they still maintain the distinction of species. This is because the classifications between species are not based on the characteristics they possess. The second problem is related to the objection regarding where to draw the line in terms of speciesism. Drawing a line based solely on sentient beings also seems like an arbitrary position. For example, the pain animals experience is observable. However, even if plants feel pain, the characteristics humans possess are incapable of observing this. Yet, plants and bacteria are living beings that can suffer harm. Many plants begin to wither when their water requirements are not met. From this perspective, it can be argued that plants, although they do not suffer harm like animals and humans, experience harm in various aspects, have a form of life, and that terminating their lives is morally wrong. Such an evaluation can lead to various problems. An example of these problems would be expressing the form of ethical behavior that should or should not exist. These expressions are in the form of necessity sentences, such as "should" or "must." These necessity statements that ethics presents indicate that everyone should comply with them, even if not everyone does. From a moral standpoint, when we include plants in our boundaries, it can be said that humans would face various physiological and biological problems, and even many people would lose their lives. This is because humans fulfill their shelter conditions by killing various plants, and this includes various fields such as engineering and technology. By mentioning these examples, the point I want to emphasize is that when we change our perspective, the examples given by animal rights advocates through humans are also valid when looked at from another perspective. In this respect, it does not seem quite possible to draw the line correctly. Overall, the evaluation highlights the complexities and challenges that arise when discussing animal rights from both a societal and philosophical perspective. The boundaries and moral considerations surrounding the treatment of animals require careful examination and thoughtful analysis to ensure a fair and ethical approach.
Speciesism, in fact, ultimately comes down to the inclination of humans towards it. At this point, an example can be given: Let's assume that there are 2 humans and a dog on an island, and they are on the verge of starvation. In this scenario, the dog would be the first choice as the creature to be eaten by humans. Conversely, if a human is eaten instead of the dog, most people would assume that this is morally wrong. Majority is not a criterion in terms of reality, but it is important in ethics. Ethics is not like mathematics or our ability to make generalizations. We cannot verify its reality in the external world. The place we verify it is through the actions of humans. At this point, the majority gains importance. The proposition "It is wrong to cause harm to an innocent child" is considered wrong by most people. Even if a minority claims the opposite, it is considered wrong from a moral perspective. Many of our moral judgments are shaped based on common general judgments. Even thinkers who believe that some of our moral judgments are universal seek to prove their beliefs based on the idea that this moral judgment is the same in every society and every time. And when we look at it, this universal claim is still about humans and mostly about the majority. In the thought experiment of the 2 humans and a dog on the island, it will be a generally accepted norm that causing harm to a human is more wrong than causing harm to a dog. At this point, it can be argued that our moral actions are related to humans and the general judgments of humans. In this regard, it can be claimed that the acceptance of Hitler's actions in Nazi Germany, despite their wrongness, was due to them being the majority, and therefore our moral judgments are not related to the thoughts of humans. However, when we look at it, outside of Nazi Germany, throughout history, the actions of such societies have been considered wrong. At this point, even if moral patterns have a place beyond humans, evaluation is in the human mind and depends on the human mind. Developments in animal rights are beneficial in many aspects. However, some perspectives create many problems in both theoretical and practical terms. In my personal opinion, animal rights advocates making their judgmental and oppressive attitudes more constructive would be much more beneficial for many innocent animals.
Speciesism, in fact, ultimately comes down to the inclination of humans towards it. At this point, an example can be given: Let's assume that there are 2 humans and a dog on an island, and they are on the verge of starvation. In this scenario, the dog would be the first choice as the creature to be eaten by humans. Conversely, if a human is eaten instead of the dog, most people would assume that this is morally wrong. Majority is not a criterion in terms of reality, but it is important in ethics. Ethics is not like mathematics or our ability to make generalizations. We cannot verify its reality in the external world. The place we verify it is through the actions of humans. At this point, the majority gains importance. The proposition "It is wrong to cause harm to an innocent child" is considered wrong by most people. Even if a minority claims the opposite, it is considered wrong from a moral perspective. Many of our moral judgments are shaped based on common general judgments. Even thinkers who believe that some of our moral judgments are universal seek to prove their beliefs based on the idea that this moral judgment is the same in every society and every time. And when we look at it, this universal claim is still about humans and mostly about the majority. In the thought experiment of the 2 humans and a dog on the island, it will be a generally accepted norm that causing harm to a human is more wrong than causing harm to a dog. At this point, it can be argued that our moral actions are related to humans and the general judgments of humans. In this regard, it can be claimed that the acceptance of Hitler's actions in Nazi Germany, despite their wrongness, was due to them being the majority, and therefore our moral judgments are not related to the thoughts of humans. However, when we look at it, outside of Nazi Germany, throughout history, the actions of such societies have been considered wrong. At this point, even if moral patterns have a place beyond humans, evaluation is in the human mind and depends on the human mind. Developments in animal rights are beneficial in many aspects. However, some perspectives create many problems in both theoretical and practical terms. In my personal opinion, animal rights advocates making their judgmental and oppressive attitudes more constructive would be much more beneficial for many innocent animals.
Yorumlar
Yorum Gönder