Dignity

Oxford dictionary defines speciesism as “discrimination against or exploitation of certain animal species by human beings, based on an assumption of mankind’s superiority” (198). I, by no means, would consider myself a ‘speciest’, while at the same time, there is definitely an obvious difference between animals and humans. Animal’s parallel humans, more than they diverge from them. Humans walk upright, while animals walk on four, humans can make decisions based on logic and ethics, while animals make decisions based on instinct. So, yes, animals and humans are different, but who is to say one is any better than the other? Who is to decide who lives and dies and what kind of life-style they are permitted to survive through? “Beneath the many differences, there is a sameness. Like us, animals embody the mystery and wonder of consciousness” (567).

Growing up, my family was not the most well-off bunch in the neighborhood and for that reason, we were did not have the privilege of being picky eaters. Where the food came from was of no consequence to us, we were just concerned with eating ourselves and nurturing our own bodies. I have eaten meat throughout my entire life and, consequently, I enjoy the taste. Whether this enjoyment is merely through the accustomed taste, I am not sure. It was not until my junior year of high school that my animal-activist English teacher allowed the class to watch “Earthlings” that I began thinking twice about what I was consuming. Or who I was consuming. Anthropocentrism is “the conviction that humans are the pinnacle of evolution, the appropriate yardstick by which to measure the lives of other animals, and the rightful owner of everything that lives” (603). There is absolutely no excuse for a human to feel as if they are in control of another being. Scenes pebbled throughout “Earthlings” focused on not only the cruel physical abuse and murdering of the animals, but also on the mental and emotional disgust thrown towards the innocent animals. “The cruelty is hard to deny – and the outrage hard to squelch – now that advocates have brought this reality into public discussion” (615).


Growing up, I never realized that the meat that was nourishing my body could have been abused and tortured for my benefit. I do believe that many animals were created in order to fulfill their task in the cycle and energy flow of life. Snakes eat mice, so too, will humans eat cows or chickens. According to Jonathan Safran Froer, “to speak about eating animals today is to speak about factory farming” and “ninety-nine percent of all land animals eaten or used to produce milk and eggs in the United States are factory farmed” (599). Simply because we eat animals, does not mean that we also must be ignorant about where and who they came from. I feel that as a species with the ability to make complex decisions, it is our responsibility to step forward and protect the lives of animals before they are killed to nurture our own bodies. They deserve the dignity of living without abuse before they must die.



http://blogs.greenpeace.ca/?cat=9&paged=3

http://www.thylazine.org/gallery/mules/

http://erinbrennan.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/the-hidden-link-between-factory-farms-and-human-illness/

Animane

To be humane is to encompass “such behaviour or disposition towards others as befits a man…a gentle or kindly in demeanour or action” (183). Is the word humane not a contradictory statement when it is a human quality to be sadistic and when humans define passion as “an intense desire or enthusiams… relating to physical suffering and pain” (186)? Sadism, a human enthusiasm for inflicting pain, suffering or humiliation on others” is a paradigm leading me to believe that the word humane may be more fitting to be renamed animane (201). An experiment testing the levels of compassion amongst monkeys, the subject monkeys were “fed only if they agreed to pull a chain that would send a painful shock to another monkey….after seeing the repercussions of their actions” a mere 87% of the monkeys continued to eat, knowing that if they did they would inflict pain on an innocent monkey (201).

One humane monkey did not eat for 14 days, refusing to harm his fellow equal. In an experiment testing guard and prisoner personality traits affecting abusive prison situations, but ultimately resulting in observing human compassion and sadistic tendencies, a similar option was given as was given to the monkeys: one may please themselves, in effect hurting others or one may not fulfill his own desires, but instead allow another to benefit by not having pain inflicted upon them. This experiment, performed at Stanford University by lead investigator Philip Zimbardo, included the involvement of 72 students with no history of instability of mental illness. 12 of the students were assigned to be guards while the other 12 were assigned to act as prisoners in a pseudo high-profile prison for two weeks. Although student “guards” were instructed not to inflict any physical pain on the “prisoners”, they were given permission to be verbally abusive and demeaning to the “prisoners” (204). The study had to be cut short at 6 days in because it was observed that the “guards” were taking on sadistic tendencies, taking pleasure in inflicting pain upon the “prisoners” while the “prisoners” were showing signs of mental instability and psychological unsoundness in response to the way that the “guards” were handling their new place of power. “In general, what [this experiment] leads to is a sense of powerlessness. That is, in this situation, [the guards] will have all the power and the [prisoners] will have none…[this experiment was a possible reflection of] the danger which lurks in the darker side of human nature” (203).



Drawing from the comparison of these two studies, it is clear that between the monkeys and the humans, the monkeys are the more humane of the two in that they show “consideration for the needs and distresses of others” while the humans show no sign of humanity or “character of being humane” (183). According to Greg Garrard, author of Ecocriticism, “humans can both be, and be compared to, animals” (171). In instances such as this prison experiment, I would interpret this belief differently than the way that it is impressed. Rather than having the connotation of the thin line between the similarities amongst animals and humans, I would argue that this may have a negative connotation in that humans can be “a brute, or beast, distinguished from man”, that humans can act as inhumane as a wild animal stalking his prey (181).



http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2268.htm

http://dericbownds.net/uploaded_images/MacaqueMonkey.jpg

http://api.ning.com/files/Ij2-798Cl6ABEO3t0-YwoxJx*WvrIavVBhreKF8LJJkEqCL2d8-HMOu8-dPhpFWEzp0xYI4o6A*EYS74ItEgwUB4E9TQM560/compassion.jpg

Gregariously Graceful

Gregariously Graceful

Link above to view

Mind versus Moral

In 388 B.C, Aristophanes said “A man’s homeland is wherever he prospers“(2). What does it mean to prosper? How can the state of being prosperous be defined to the extent to which it identifies someone’s home? Throughout the history of text, a home is a place where your loved ones are, a place of security. Home is being surrounded by the familiar and is a comfortable place to return to after an exhausting journey. As a college student, I watch as people come to Austin, leaving their home behind. Rather than being homesick, most University of Texas students quickly make Austin their new home. In this sense of the word “home”, the unfamiliar, the place of insecurity and a place away from your loved ones. This definition completely contradicts the initial definition of home. Many humans would agree with Herman Melville that “life’s a voyage that’s homeward bound” because wherever life takes you will become your home (2). Yes, everyone comes from somewhere, but due to everyone’s differing circumstances, it is thought to be essential to adapt and remake “home” wherever it comes easiest to you (2). One of the absolute most distinguishable differences between humans and animals is that they are simple and we are, well, complicated to say the least.


“A pair of wrens will build their nest year after year in a certain box. A she-wolf…will litter time after time in one particular cave….all kinds of cattle..have strong attachments to their accustomed home” (J.Frank Dobie, The Longhorn 292). For an animal, home is one, never-changing place. A home for an animal is their “querencia…it denotes not only the haunt, the lair, the stomping ground of animals, but their place-preference for certain functions” (317).



Treating animals as if they were humans would be one of the biggest mistakes a person could make. Barring the anatomical differences, humans and animals think completely differently and are therefore on completely different levels as species. This is not to say that one is better than the other, nor that one is entitled to make worse or end a life for another. Hemingway’s Death in The Afternoon focuses around the nature of acceptable standards versus morality and passion. “A bullfight is very moral to me because I feel very fine while it is going on and have a feeling of life and death and mortality and immortality, and after it is over I feel very sad but very fine” (703). Not only does the bull not consider factors of morality or right and wrong, he also does not get the opportunity to do so. The capacity of animal minds against human minds is like comparing the size of an ant to an elephant; they are made and function completely differently. But does this difference give humans automatic permission to do what they want with the animals of their choosing? No. According to Hemingway, “the bullfighter…has ability to do extraordinary things with the bull” and that he can do these things because he, as a human, has the upper hand in knowledge and motility (Hemingway 12). Hemingway’s moral standards feel okay with entertainment at the expense of another living thing, simply because he does not feel bad as a viewer. Would he commit to this same attitude if the game was at the expense of humans, rather than at the expense of the bull? Unlikely. In regards to the mustang, Dobie tells his readers that “no one who conceives him as only a potential servant to man can apprehend the mustang” (Dobie 314). The vast differences between humans and animals cannot lead to the presumption that humans can take or dispose of animals as they wish. A single person’s moral standards ought to be measured up to the simple, forgiving standards of an animal – perhaps this would lead to more just decisions regarding a life other than your own.

1) Dowden. "Phil. 153 Mind." Spring 2008. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Feb. 2006. .

2) "Home quotes." Find the famous quotes you need, ThinkExist.com Quotations.. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Feb. 2010. .

3) "Horse retirement home | Retirement livery | Polcoverack Farm Cornwall." Horse retirement home | Retirement livery | Polcoverack Farm Cornwall. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Feb. 2010. .