The Philosophers and the Animals

"The heart is the seat of a faculty, sympathy, that allows us to share at times the being of another. Sympathy has everything to do with the subject and little to do with the object, the "another"..." (79)

I think this quote is an apt summarization of where we must begin to deal with this subject. It is one that is confusing and controversial, and I don't think that there really is a right or wrong answer. That may be because I myself am still thinking through the issue.

However, I think humans tend to think selfishly - not necessarily out of a desire to do so, but because they have difficulty considering the "other" as equal to themselves. This probably explains so much of the conflict in the world throughout human history. We act emotionally, but not always thoughtfully. We ar so self absorbed in our own worlds we can't see that there are others around us with worlds of their own.

This is a human tendency. I don't think this is a blanket statement of human nature, because for the most part, we reach out and form connections with each other. However, Costello makes the case that we do not do this for animals, only for humans, becuase we are stuck seeing animals as below humans. This is probably true, but I wouldn't go so far as agreeing with her comparison of our treatment of animals to the Holocaust. Or to any other human tragedy for that matter. I do believe that we need to seriously reevaluate the way animals are treated, but I don't think that their deaths are comparable to human deaths.

"...the point is, normal humans have capacities that far exceed those of nonhman animals, and some of these capacities are morally significant in particular contexts... The value that is lost when something is emptied depends on what was there when it was full, and there is more to human existence than tehre is to bat existence." (512-4)

I agree with the above statement as a more balanced view than Costello's. Yes, animal rights have inherent value. But we are all tied together in a cycle of life. There is a certain degree of hierarchy, which I think GOd put in place for a reason. My religious views teach me to respect and treat animals with kindness, but to be practical - humans need to use animals, and should do so, but with dignity. Humans were given a responsibility to care for the planet - as the story goes, at the beginning of time, all beings assembled before God, (animals, plants, humans, the elements, etc.) and God asked who wanted to bear the responsibilty of having "reason." Humanity offered to take that burden, and GOd breathed the soul into humanity. This is obviously a paraphrased story, but my point is, there is definite difference between animals and humans. Both are valuable, but differently. Humans may not have been the best caretakers of the planet and its creations, but its done well in some cases as well.
 emilyrichardsonsblog.blogspot.com
What would happen if things were the other way around? Could we imagine ourselves as "ape?"
rj-whenlovecomestotown.blogspot.com

"When people say we should only feel - and at times Costello comes close to that in her lecture - I'm reminded of Goring, who said, 'I think with my blood.' See where it led him. We can't take our feelings as moral data, immune from rational criticism." (513).

There should be a balance between reason and emotion, and I think that is the answer in every case. To find the balance to every situation.