Understanding Humanism



4438650-476250Humanist perspective: Animal welfareThere is no universally agreed humanist perspective on animal welfare. Humanists try to use reason, evidence, empathy, and respect for others when thinking about ethical questions. They do not have a strict creed or any unquestionable rules to follow, or any compulsory customs or food taboos that might influence their attitude to the treatment of animals. Reason and experience can lead humanists to different conclusions when addressing questions on animal welfare. They have to think for themselves, and decide whether, and how far, to extend their concern for the welfare of human beings to other animals.Because of its name, some people think that Humanism must be concerned only with human welfare. In general, humanists tend to put the needs of human beings first if there is a conflict between the needs of a human or another animal. But a rational morality, based on evidence, experience, and empathy, is likely to include an unwillingness to cause animals unnecessary suffering.Views on animal welfareThe debate about how we should treat animals has a long history. Some cultures see no reason to treat animals well, and beliefs that human beings are special and that animals do not have souls have sometimes been used to justify exploitation and cruelty. Some religious people think that God created the world and gave humans ‘stewardship’ or ‘dominion’ over the other living creatures and this can influence their views on animal welfare, but humanists need to look elsewhere for guidance.Philosophers have long argued about animal consciousness and suffering. The philosopher René Descartes, thought that animals were unthinking, unfeeling automata. But others have argued that animals might be more like us than we realise and so we have good reason to extend our sympathies towards them.In the sixteenth century, Michel de Montaigne thought that animals were probably very like us:Why should we think that they have inner natural instincts different from anything we ourselves experience?-28575-1270In the eighteenth century the utilitarian, Jeremy Bentham, asked:The question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but Can they suffer?170815220345And the eighteenth century humanist philosopher, David Hume, wrote:33274022225We should be bound by the laws of humanity to give gentle usage to these creaturesCharles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection taught us how closely related to other animals we are, while in the twentieth century and today ecologists remind us of the interdependence of species and the importance of conservation. Many humanists will use such questions, reasoning, and scientific evidence to guide their answers to questions about animal welfare.4438650-476250Humanist perspective: Animal welfareHow can reason and evidence help?‘To give preference to the life of a being simply because that being is a member of our species would put us in the same position as racists who give preference to those who are members of their race.’Peter SingerThe humanist philosopher, Peter Singer, popularized the term ‘speciesism’ to refer to the practice of privileging humans over other animals. Singer is a utilitarian who believes that ethical decisions should be based on achieving ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’. He argues that there is no good reason not to include other animals in this calculation because the boundary between human and other animals is completely arbitrary. Not all humanists agree with Singer (and not all are utilitarians) but many agree that just as we are able to extend our moral circle beyond our immediate family, to our community, and then out to the rest of the human race, we should be able to extend it out to other animals: our extended family. We feel there is something special about the dividing line between humans and all non-human animals. However, evidence shows us that there is more difference between a chimpanzee and a snail than between a human and a chimpanzee. Some say it is our greater degree of intelligence that divides us from the animals, but Singer asks, ‘If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit non-humans?’‘All the arguments to prove man's superiority cannot shatter this hard fact: in suffering the animals are our equals.’Peter SingerA key question for many humanists is that raised by the utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham: Can animals suffer? It is hard to form definite conclusions about what animals feel, but scientists are beginning to work out more precisely what animals experience and what causes suffering. Research into the brains of animals shows that their brains, nervous systems, and behavioral responses are quite like ours and a great deal of testing of medicines on animals is done because we assume they are alike physically and psychologically. The more like us they are, the more they can suffer like us and for many that means the more they deserve our concern and respect. Empathy and compassion are key components of ethical decision making for many humanists and so evidence of animal suffering will play a strong role in their decisions about how we should treat animals.‘Animals are not here for us to do as we please with. We are not their superiors, we are their equals. We are their family. Be kind to them.’Ricky Gervais, comedian, animal rights campaigner, and patron of the British Humanist AssociationMost humanists do not think that we should exploit or mistreat others just because they are different from us or we are bigger or cleverer than they are. Most simply do not want to be the kind of person who causes suffering or who tolerates cruelty to others. For many, that must include animals.4438650-476250Humanist perspective: Animal WelfareVegetarianismDisagreements exist between humanists on the acceptability of eating meat. Many have moral concerns about eating meat and for this reason some will choose to become vegetarian or vegan, but others feel that eating meat is morally acceptable. What many humanists will disapprove of is the way we treat many of the animals we breed for food. Some campaign for the humane rearing and killing of animals, and some will therefore only eat ‘free range’ meat or animal products. Many humanists think that some traditional religious ritual slaughter (where animals are bled to death without pre-stunning and therefore suffer unnecessarily) should not take precedence over killing animals humanely.We should also consider the evidence for the harmful environmental effect of farming on our planet. Raising meat uses up a lot of land and can be particularly destructive of forests and grassland. Some argue that we should try to do as little harm as possible and choose farming practices and eating habits with this in mind. There are also consequences of farming meat on human poverty and inequality. Animals use land and food that could be used to grow vegetable crops that could feed many more people much more directly and economically. In a world where some people do not have enough to eat, some argue that eating meat is a luxury we can do without.‘By ceasing to rear and kill animals for food, we can make so much extra food available for humans that, properly distributed, it would eliminate starvation and malnutrition from this planet. Animal Liberation is Human Liberation too.’Peter Singer, humanist philosopherOther uses of animalsHumanists would prefer not to cause unnecessary suffering to sentient beings, and discussion on the use of animals therefore tends to focus on what is ‘unnecessary suffering’ and which animals are sentient.Many people think that fur coats are unnecessary luxuries and that the cruelty involved in farming or hunting animals for their fur cannot be justified. Many will also think that hunting for sport is unnecessarily cruel, although some question whether fishing should be included in this category. Many will oppose using animals for our entertainment, in zoos and circuses, or as pets (sometimes bred for characteristics that make life very difficult for the animal, for example the flat faces of some dogs that interfere with their breathing). Humanists try to make use of reason and evidence when considering questions about such practices, but this will sometimes lead different humanists to different conclusions, often depending on specific circumstances or situations.The sharpest divisions of opinion amongst humanists (and indeed amongst most people) are over the use of animals in experiments. Many people would probably agree that there are enough cosmetics and shampoos in the world to make the testing of new ones on animals unnecessary. But medical research is a different matter. Most of us would not want to use untested drugs or treatments, or have new medicines tested on ourselves or other people. Many effective medicines and treatments have been discovered and refined in tests on animals, and some humanists would accept these tests as long as the benefits outweigh the costs - although this is not always an easy calculation to make. It is also worth remembering that some research involving animals is intended to improve animal welfare - for example, animals need medicines too. But even those who approve of such experiments will often argue that they are kept to a minimum and conducted as humanely as possible.4438650-533400Humanist perspective: Animal WelfareQuestions for discussion:Should there be such a thing as animal rights? What rights should animals have?Can we have rights without duties?Does the fact animals do not respect our rights mean we should not respect theirs?Should empathy be extended to non-humans?How far should our moral circle extend?Is there anything that makes us different from all other animals or is it all a matter of scale?Do some animals matter more than others? Should there be some kind of sliding scale of concern?New-born babies could be said to be less sentient, less aware of themselves and others and the past and the future, than adult chimpanzees. Does that mean we should experiment on new-born babies rather than adult chimpanzees?Is the life or pain of a human being worth more than the life or pain of a rabbit? Two rabbits? Fifty rabbits? A thousand rabbits? How many elephants?A rabbit is born and lives its whole life in a small barren cage. Does it make any difference to your moral views on this if it is kept (a) as a pet, (b) for meat, (c) for fur, (d) for medical experiments, (e) for beauty product experiments.Do you think that animals have a different attitude to death from humans?Given the consequences on the environment of land use, is eating ‘free range meat’ morally better than eating battery farmed meat?Some ritually slaughtered meat is sold in butchers, supermarkets, and restaurants without being labelled. Do you think it should be sold or served at all? Or just to the religious groups that require it? Do you think it should be clearly labelled? Would you buy or eat it?Should we only be allowed to test things on creatures capable of consenting to such testing?What new issues of animal welfare (if any) does genetic modification raise? Is it right to genetically modify animals for organ donation to humans? Would there be anything wrong in, say, genetically modifying pigs so that they liked being kept in battery pens?How consistent are you in your attitudes to animals?How are you deciding your answers to these questions? What principles and arguments influence your answers?How is the humanist view on this issue similar or different to that of other worldviews you have come across?Further resources:BHA campaigns page on ritual slaughter of animals: .uk/campaigns/public-ethical-issues/animal-welfareBaggini, Julian, The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten: And Ninety Nine Other Thought Experiments (Granta Books, 2005)Singer, Peter, Animal Liberation (Harper Collins, 1975)Singer, Peter , Equality for Animals: singer/by/1979----.htmSinger, Peter , Taking humanism beyond speciesism: singer/by/200410--.htmShould humanism extend to animal rights: commentary/should-humanism-extend-to-animal-rights ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download