In The Lure to Perfection, I had touble agreeing with what Kohak states. In my perception, he portrays anything but vegetarianism to be evil and creul. I do not agree that this is the case. Once again, I believe that it is acceptable for humans to consume meat when needed, and that this does not make us "evil". It is part of the food chain, just as stronger animals eat weaker animals, and so forth. If Kohak believes so strongly that animals and humans should be equal, then it is resonable to compare our actions to other animals. When hungry, animals kill animals for food; humans happen to be at the top of this heirarchy. The difference is that we have the ability to reason and make moral judgement, where our ability to recognize and choose whether the suffering and torture of an animal is just. This is something that "non human" animals lack; an antelope undoubtedly suffers as lions attack and devour it. It is just for a human to kill an animal for food or supplies, as it is resonable for a lion to kill an antelope. I do not think the problem lies so much in whether or not vegetarianism is the ultimate good and the solution, rather the problem lies in the unnecessary torture or killing of animals for greed. When Kohak states that one can not kill without it negatively affecting their human nature, or negativey affecting their conscience, I think that this relates to unjust killing. However, he made me realize that whether I choose to do something or nothing, my decision will leave a footprint and affect the world around me. It made me think about how significant one person's efforts can become, and how too often we hesitate to express our views or carry out our beliefs because of the influence of the world around us, or our own lack of confidence in ourselves.
In All Too Human, it was easier for me to relate to what points Rollin illustrated. I agree with Rollin that just because we may be superior in a certain respect, this does not entitle us to be creul to those beneath us, whether this is demonstrated through the treatment of animals or humans. I also agree when he states, " . . . the way humans will treat other animals will depend in great part on the way they perceive them" (46). If humans' perception of animals was something more than machines, as beings with dignity and the desire to live, then our overall treatment of animals would most likely improve. It would be easier for us to relate to their suffering. Rollin continues to make points that I agree with. He focuses primarily on the transformation of our attitude, and that no amount of wealth justifies the unnecessary suffering of a living being.
Kohak's discussion of his own views, as well as Rollin's, has continued to open my eyes to the ecological issues around us, and the multiple views of each issue. I have realized how much my effort or not can affect the environment, and that each positive action or choice leads to an improvement. Although it is not always easy for me to agree, I think he presents both sides with eye-opening arguements that can be used for the better. I am interested to see Kohak discusses next.
Rather than espousing the claim that animals and humans are "equal," I think that Kohak is poiting out that they are "equivelent" or no lesser, just because their lives aren't human lives. Just as you wouldn't claim that a forty-year old aerospace engineer and a learning-disabled eleven-year old are "equal" you also wouldn't say that one's life is more valuable than the other's. Kohak proposes that maybe that common denominator, that universal reverance for life that pervades humans from the highest functioning to the lowest can apply to animals as well.
ReplyDeleteWe can acknowledge that we don't feel the same attatchment for animals outside of or far from our own species, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. But what would be abad thing, Kohak suggests, is that we have no reverence for life just because it isn't human. Should we really value human life just because it's higher functioning, just because we're capable of making "rational, moral decisions?" -whatever that really means. Chimps have cognitive levels equal to that of school children, and humans live in vegetative states hooked up to hospital machines. Yet one is frequently used for scientific testing while society bulks at the idea of "pulling the plug" on the other.
Not all lifeforms are the same, and to assume that cows shoudl have the right to free speech is absurd, but should we value its life, that common denominator, as less because it can't speak? Life is life, bovine, feline or other.