Can They Suffer?
Connie Gauci de Brincat B.A. (Hons.) Philosophy
The fundamental principle of equality, on which the equality of all human being rests, is the principle of equal consideration of interests. In a very chaotic and increasingly violent world, only a basic moral principle of this kind can allow us to defend a form of equality that embraces all human beings, with all the differences that exists between them.
While this principle does provide an adequate basis for human equality, it provides a basis that cannot be limited to humans. Having accepted the principle of equality as a sound moral basis for relations with others of our own species, we are also committed to accepting it as a sound moral basis for relations with those outside our own species - the non-human animals
We are not used to giving animals a second thought, so this may sound outrageous. The most important moral issues today focus around racial minorities, gay rights, the rights of women. The rights of animals do not rate high on the political agenda. The welfare of animals is in a totally different category. The politicians are not going to waste their time on some people who are dotty about dogs and cats. How can they lose their valuable time on equality for animals when so many humans are denied real equality?
This attitude reflects a popular prejudice against taking the interests of animals seriously. This prejudice is no better founded than the prejudice of white slave owners against taking the interests of their African slaves seriously. From a distance, it is very easy for us to criticise, but the brutality and hardship these slaves endured was real and was harsh. And people turned a blind eye; after all these men and women were slaves and the colour of their skin was different. Most important of al they were owned like chattels. They went with the estate.
The principle of equal consideration of interests is so simple, so clear. The message is crystal clear. The principle implies that our concern of others ought not to depend on what they are like, the colour of their skin, or what abilities they possess. The fact that some members of our own species but are not members of our own race does not mean that we can exploit them. Also the fact that some members of our own kind but are less intelligent than us does not give us the right to exploit them.
The principle of equal consideration also implies the fact that beings that are not members of our species does not give us the right exploit them and similarly the fact that other animals are less intelligent than we are does not mean that their interests may be disregarded.
Many philosophers have argued for the equal consideration of interests in some form or other, as a basic moral principle. Only a few have seen that this principle has applications beyond our own species. A contemporary philosopher who has advocated this line of thought is undoubtedly Peter Singer. But even well before Peter Singer, we find Jeremy Bentham, the father of Modern Utilitarianism, writing in favour of animal rights, in a time when African slaves in the British colonies were still being treated very much the same as animals are being treated at this point in time. With great passion Bentham, asks this about non human animals - The question is not. Can they reason? Nor can they talk? But, can they suffer?
Bentham is pointing to the capacity for suffering as the vital characteristic that entitles a being to equal consideration. The capacity to suffer, or to suffer and to enjoy happiness is not just another characteristic like the capacity of language, or for logic. Can animals feel pain? Can animals suffer? Do animals enjoy life? Do animals enjoy being brutalised, being kicked, being burnt? I think not. Do cats need to be declawed as if they were inanimate? Those who argue for the declawing of cats are not cat lovers. Cat lovers do not brutalise their pets.
If we were to take a stone, we could ask whether a stone suffers if we kick it. A stone does not have interests because it cannot suffer. Nothing that we can do to it could, possibly make any difference to its welfare. But we can certainly make a difference to an animal's life.
It has been argued that it is the mental anguish that makes the human's position so much harder to bear. This difference, however does not point to a greater suffering on the part of the human being. Animals, with their limited intelligence, may in fact suffer more.
In a world of pain and suffering, in a world still reeling from the violent act of terrorism committed on US Territory, In Iraq, Palestine and varous other hotspots. In a world where human beings and beings of a lesser kind are plagued by the actions of irresponsible human beings, something has got to give. Pain and suffering should be prevented or minimised irrespective of the race, sex, or species of the being that suffers.
