Comments on: Ethical Animals

By: pattrice

pattrice — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:04:06 +0000

I’m not ignoring this question; I just need to think through my reply. Stay tuned…

By: Shilo

Shilo — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:20:57 +0000

I guess the question I was really asking was this: In your opinion, where do the abstract rules come from? I suppose it seemed they would logically stem from relationships. For instance, when Kant argued against using people as means to an end, I would have assumed that was a result (direct or indirect) of his relationships with people; that is, whatever it was he experienced as a member of his community and society itself is what led him to produce his ethical system.

Perhaps the abstract rules have taken on lives of their own and their origins forgotten — maybe we rely too much on the letter of ethical systems instead of their practical, humane applications — but I wonder, if the abstract rules aren’t at some point the result of our animal interactions, however long ago, what is their origin?

On a completely separate note, I’ve been looking into Anarchism and I was told you’d be a good person to go to. Do you know of any good resources on this subject?

By: pattrice

pattrice — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 01:54:14 +0000

What do you mean by that, I wonder. I could guess and refute, but I’d rather not set up straw men just to knock them down.

By: Shilo

Shilo — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 23:23:24 +0000

Aren’t the “abstract rules” based on relationships?

By: Louche

Louche — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 15:41:10 +0000

I agree. I like the abstract ethical arguments, perhaps more for the strategies they offer than for the “right/wrong” ethics of them. But I have recently realized that the reason animals within the human sphere matter to humans is precisely because they’re within the human sphere… they are part of the human community. And treating animals that are not wild as though they were wild - unable to be cared for by humans - merely because those that *are* wild are members of the same species is a kind of speciesism that denies the capacity for nonhumans to live harmoniously within what are, thus far, human-dominated communities. The key words here are community and harmony. It irks us the way animals are treated, not because we are tirelessly comparing domesticated animals to their “unfortunate” counterparts in the wild, but because we realize that these nonhumans belong to our communities and because treating them poorly creates a disharmonious relationship. Our relationship to wild animals is simply different from that with tame or domesticated animals. Harmony must be created in different ways. And the great need for this realization is demonstrated by the way that we as a society respect “wildlife,” yet object so strongly to caring for those animals we use for our own purposes, though arguably we are “using” wildlife as well.

Just as an organism needs to maintain homeostasis, a balancing act for life, organic communities need to maintain harmony within. We need to acknowledge that humans are not the only members of our communities, for nonhuman animals have slaved and toiled to build our communities since the dawn of the human species. And they continue to do so. It is high time we began to repay them.

Thanks for the post. Very insightful.