How Do Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, and Kant Think About Animal Suffering?

40 years ago, Peter Singer wrote a book titled Animal Liberation; this book was the beginning of a "re-examination of the relationship between humans and animals" and an ethical critique of "industrial animal farming." Singer's family, originally Austrian, left Austria for Australia when the Nazis came to power, and Singer was born in Melbourne, Australia, where he also completed his primary and university education in philosophy. He then completed his studies in England and has since taught at universities in Australia and the United States. He is currently a professor of bioethics at Princeton University in the United States. Singer is among the followers of the school of "utilitarianism." In very simple terms, a "utilitarian" is a person for whom the consequences of human actions are fundamental in ethical inquiries. If the outcome is desirable, the action is right; otherwise, the action is indefensible.

Actions that produce the greatest benefit or utility for the greatest number of people are, in this view, considered ethical. In this type of outlook, pain and suffering are deemed undesirable, and happiness and pleasure are deemed desirable. Therefore, when your action brings about pain and suffering, it is ethically undesirable, and if it brings about both pain and suffering and happiness and pleasure, one must calculate whether the action leads to more pleasure overall or more pain and suffering. The very possibility of this kind of calculation is controversial, and there is no calculator for measuring pain and suffering or happiness and pleasure. Nevertheless, we can still speak of pointless suffering and avoid causing it. Following Jeremy Bentham, Peter Singer considers the capacity to feel pain and suffering as a condition for entering the equation of reducing pain and increasing pleasure; an equation they regard as an ethical one. Thus, Singer pays attention to the pain and suffering of animals and their pleasure in the ethical equations between humans and animals. Recently, the publication of images of an individual's extremely violent behavior toward a dog provoked public outrage. Such reactions show that inflicting pain and suffering on animals is not accepted in the public's view either. Among Singer's goals is to draw our attention to instances of inflicting pain and suffering on animals that we have overlooked. Our ethical sensitivity to pain and suffering is pervasive, and the only remaining issue is awareness of the instances of pain and suffering that remain hidden from our eyes. Last Saturday, June 18, 2016, Peter Singer gave a speech at the "Natural History Museum Vienna" on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the publication of his book Animal Liberation, the translation of which you can read below:

I had been to Vienna several times before, but I never imagined that the "Natural History Museum Vienna" could arrange such gatherings so that we could speak about the "moral status of animals." I am very pleased about this. Today, I want to speak about the achievements of the liberation movement for animals and also outline the roadmap ahead. We only need to look at the past decades to realize that the attitude toward the issue of "animal ethics" was very different in the past. The traditional view of the issue of animals in the West is rooted in "Christianity" and "Aristotelian ethics." In Christianity, humans are permitted to subdue nature. This is among the beliefs based on which humans think they can treat animals in any way they wish. It was unfortunate for animals that Aristotle was accepted as the model philosopher in the Middle Ages, because Aristotle thought there is a hierarchy in the world, and in this hierarchy, the lower levels of "being" are created for the use of the higher levels of "being." For example, plants are created for animals, and animals for humans. Thus, in Aristotle's view, the existence of animals is for the exploitation of humans.

Aquinas, who was also the official philosopher of the Church, interpreted the

The prevailing attitude today differs greatly from the views of Aquinas, Descartes, or Kant. That is, we believe we should not inflict pain and suffering on animals; we consider this our duty and criticize those who harm animals. We are all probably opposed, on a conceptual level, to the infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering on animals. For instance, if we see someone beating a dog with a stick, or a horse left alone in a field without any food to eat, we consider these instances of unnecessary infliction of pain and suffering and try to stop them. However, when the interests of humans and animals conflict, we always prioritize human interests, even in cases where the interests of animals and humans are similar. I think we need to reconsider this issue. This is the central argument of the book Animal Liberation, which I wrote 40 years ago. This book introduces our human prejudice regarding animals under the term “speciesism”; a prejudice that bears many similarities to racism and sexism. As stated in the first chapter of this book, “speciesism” is a prejudice towards one’s own species over other groups of animals. I do not mean to say that speciesism, racism, and sexism are all entirely identical, but rather that in all these cases, we have a group that holds more power and exploits another group by abusing its power. The powerful group also cultivates the “necessary ideology” for exploitation to make its actions seem justified and permissible. I think we need to become aware that, by virtue of the power we hold over animals, we are exploiting them and using them instrumentally for our own benefit.

As I mentioned, from Bentham’s perspective, the mere fact that a creature can suffer is sufficient to include it in our moral considerations. The species of that creature makes no difference in this matter. Whether it is a human or another creature, our priority is to reduce the pain and suffering of all animal species. This is the view I defended in that book. In my opinion, the question of when and how animals can be killed is far more difficult to answer than is often believed. This question can even be raised regarding our own species; “euthanasia” is one of the cases currently under much discussion. Countries like Belgium and the Netherlands have legalized euthanasia. In my book, I did not address the killing of humans, and I believe that by prioritizing pain and suffering, we can reconsider the existing categorization between humans and animals.

The British conservative philosopher Roger Scruton believes that humans have achievements as long as they are alive, and if a human is killed, they can no longer have achievements; whereas, for example, a cow, at whatever age it is killed—whether for its meat, or for the use of its body parts in the clothing and cosmetics industries, etc.—will have no achievements. Therefore, we cannot say that by killing the cow, we have deprived it of attaining its achievements. It is on this basis that it is said animals can be killed for their meat or for the use of their skin and wool, but humans cannot be killed. Interestingly, Scruton’s critique is not an instance of “speciesism.” If you only emphasize the capacity for realizing achievements, the problem of speciesism does not arise. However, Scruton points to another problem. What he says does not apply to all humans.

There are humans who suffer from severe mental retardation and have no possibility of having achievements. If we were to accept Scruton’s argument, then this argument would also apply to some humans. A conclusion that I doubt a conservative philosopher like Scruton would be willing to accept. Another question is how similar the experiences of humans and animals are to one another. This question, particularly regarding the experience of pain in animals and humans, is important for our discussion and we must examine it. I have written extensively about poverty. Our goal is how to reduce the pain and suffering of other humans through charitable giving and provide them with opportunities for happiness and enjoyment.

Therefore, charitable giving should be done in a way that has the greatest impact. Hence, we must be fully aware of the institution we are donating to and know how much of that money reaches the deserving person and how much is spent on administrative affairs or even, in some cases, squandered. Our goal in charity is to provide health, hygiene, educational opportunities, and the like for other human beings with the money we spend; because we believe that in this state, they enjoy their lives more and become happy. In the same way, we can ask how the pain and suffering of animals can be reduced. For instance, is the experience of pain and suffering of a chicken the same as that of a cow? Does a cow, due to having a larger brain, possess greater cognitive capacity and consequently endure more pain? These questions have not yet received any substantial answers. In addition to these, we can currently think about the pain and suffering of wild animals in nature. Should we also prevent living creatures from being torn apart by other living creatures? For example, what should we do about predatory animals like wolves and lions? Let them eat other creatures? Intervening in nature and disrupting the biological cycle is also very important. Critics will say that reducing the suffering and pain of animals living in the wild is not our only existing value. We must pay attention to nature as a biological cycle. This debate is relatively new, and moral philosophers have also entered into it. It seems to me that we cannot do anything specific about this issue in particular.

Now let us speak a little about the practical achievements that have been realized because of writing this book, or in which this book has played a role. In my opinion, tremendous progress has been made in the past 40 years, that is, since the publication of the book "Animal Liberation." Currently, the number of animals used in medical experiments is far fewer than the animals used for food. While 100 million animals are used in experiments and research annually, about 60 billion animals are killed annually in the food industry, and this number excludes animals caught from the water. The focus on the problems of factory farming and the encouragement of vegetarianism is because the number of living beings killed in this industry is incomparable to any other industry. Forty years ago, torturing animals in factory farms, mistreating them, keeping them in small cages, and separating animals from their parents at young ages were more common than they are today. Fortunately, successful steps have been taken in this regard. Keeping animals in a suitable condition, or on a farm, or a place where they can live freely and enjoy their lives, is a goal we are approaching. But the progress we have made has not been sufficient.

For example, industrial poultry farming is such that chickens are tortured in it. In one type of industrial poultry farming, a very large number of chicks are kept in a vast area, in such a way that one could say the floor of these areas is carpeted with chickens. These chicks must be ready for sale in the market in just 6 weeks. The hormones given to them sometimes cause their bodies to grow but their legs not to grow; in such a situation, the chicken's leg breaks, and it will die under the feet of other chickens in this poultry farm. This is just one example of the pain and suffering that chickens endure in industrial poultry farms. It is for this reason that "John Webster" considers the poultry industry the largest single example of systematic inhumane behavior towards another animal species.

Some of my friends say they are not vegetarians but they eat chicken. As if eating chicken is better than eating red meat. This is while, considering the state of industrial poultry and livestock farming, chickens suffer more.

By eating their meat, we also share in this pain and suffering. The pressure brought upon the European Union has caused some practices with chickens and livestock to be declared illegal, but we still have a very long way ahead of us; especially considering marine products, one trillion living creatures are caught from the sea annually. Many of them are killed by suffocation during capture. Or as another example, evidence shows that salmon, constantly swimming in circles in fish farm tanks, suffer from depression.

These are all instances in which animals endure pain and suffering. It should also be noted that vegetarianism has grown relatively noticeably in Western countries, and the consumption of plant-based foods has become common; these foods can be easily obtained.

Furthermore, some individuals do not eat meat, or eat less of it, for health reasons. Therefore, as I said, progress has been made in these areas, but we still have much work to do.

Reflection

<Cruelty>, the Moral Vice According to some Enlightenment thinkers like David Hume, cruelty is the worst moral vice. Cruelty is a trait that manifests itself in specific actions, and we recognize it through those actions. For Hume, these actions are the worst vices because they provoke the strongest reactions. Thus, according to Hume's approach to ethics, if the members of a society are indifferent to the sight of a group's pain and suffering, or even take pleasure in it, one can conclude that society has fallen into moral decay. In some cases, conditions arise where members of a society inflict pain and suffering on another person but then experience a kind of remorse. Although they may repeat the same actions due to individual weakness of will or the lack of a suitable social context to change their behavior. At the same time, there are people who want to inflict pain and suffering on others and are satisfied with having such a desire. These individuals are the best examples of cruelty; they want others to suffer pain, feel no remorse for it, consider this pain and suffering to be deserved, and sometimes even take pleasure in it. Despite the fact that we might think only a person suffering from a psychological disorder could commit such acts, the reality is that many of us are complicit in such actions. The scope of cruelty is, of course, not limited to other humans. Especially when we consider that pain and suffering are not perceived only by humans, and there are other sentient beings who also suffer pain.

.

---

.

How Do Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, and Kant Think About "Animal Suffering"?

Human Perceptions of Animal Pain and Suffering

A Lecture by Peter Singer (Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, USA) on the Fortieth Anniversary of His Book "Animal Liberation"

Source: Iran Newspaper | Issue 6257 | 21/4/95 | Page 15 (Thought)

Author and Translator of Peter Singer's Lecture: Zohair Bagheri Noaparast (PhD Candidate in Philosophy, University of Vienna (Austria))

.

---

.