Many of the thinkers that have been discussed in the two books that we have read believe that the distinguishing factor between humanity and animals is the ability to reason. Reason has always been held in great regard by civilized humans; in fact the Stoics went so far as to say that it was the ‘spark of the divine’. However, more modern thinkers, like Peter Singer and Albert Schweitzer, throw out the notion of superiority through reason. Midgley, although in a far less extent, agrees with the Utilitarians that language and reason do not determine ethics.
Midgley, like many other thinkers, proposes that sentience and emotion are important factors in determining ethics. The fact that the animal can feel emotion is important to Utilitarians, and the fact that people feel good when treating animals nicely is important to both Midgley and Kohak. Albert Schweitzer, as Kohak pointed out, appears to some to be sappy and naïve, so also must Midgley with her ideas of the Golden Rule with regard to animal ethics. While Midgley makes very good points, she ultimately appears to be swearing off entirely the arguments of those in the reason camp. She uses the pejorative ‘absolute dismisser’ to describe someone that believes that animals do not matter. She paints the portrait, through straw man arguments and quoting silly philosophers, that if you believe that organized language and reason separate man from animals than you are an absolute dismisser. While she probably does not believe this herself, given her compromising nature, she, nevertheless, paints the radical Utilitarians as slightly naïve and Rationalists as tyrannical.
Although Midgley herself might not be guilty, many of the thinkers she quotes are guilty of another kind of ‘absolute dismissal’. Namely that they dismiss off hand any argument that man is separate from animals on the grounds of reason. While many of the Rationalist philosophers say that animals can’t have ‘rights’ for semantic issues; Midgley believes that you can’t say that animals have rights or interests either. While Midgley herself might not entirely swear off a reason argument, she presents the argument in a very derisive tone.
I don't think that Midgley is blatantly dismissing the barrier between animals and humans built upon the argument of reason, but rather suggesting that there are different and unknown capacities to "reason" among other species, and that humans can't really draw a line between those who reason and those who can't, simply because there's a gradation. In addition, she argues that even if a big discrepancy exists between capacities for reason, capacities for emotion make us so like other species anyway, that to but up a wall based upon reason is to ignore that which makes us so similar.
ReplyDeleteP.S. Don't you think that "sappy" is a little harsh?
I dont think that Midgley blatantly dismisses the reason arguments, but i think her bias is obvious. I dont begrudge Midgley her opinions, but if she is going to portray both sides i wish she would do so a little more evenly.
ReplyDeleteYou are right, 'sappy' is a little harsh; "amateurish and syrupy" works a lot better (Kohak 83).
I think that there is offence over the adjective such as "sappy" proves that the idea of language cannot be disregarded. Language is the very thing that causes indiviudals to act. While non verbal communcation is necessary there is a reason speechs go down in history becuase they motivate the indiviudal. Language stirs the emotions so maybe a combination is needed.
ReplyDeleteTrue. Were it not for language, Richard and I couldn't argue over how to describe Midgley's argument! (by the way, "amateurish and syrupy" isn't much better than "sappy.")
ReplyDeleteYes, language is important especially to arguments. I would go so far to say that 'amateurish and syrupy' is decidedly more derisive than sappy. Either way, I was merely paraphrasing Kohak, who was writing about Schweitzer. Midgley might not be sappy, but Schweitzer is sappier than a maple tree.
ReplyDelete