Monday, March 16, 2009
KOKO
Do animals have rights? Do we have an obligation to treat animals a certain way? Some may say that we have the right to do what we want to animals. Others may say that as humans we have some moral obligations but that animals are secondary still to human concerns. Descartes saw animals as objects. Now though it is quite clear that animals are able to feel, express emotions, learn, and even communicate. In Koko’s case some may believe that she should be put back into the wild where she “belongs.” Others might say that this would be cruel because she is now used to a certain way of life and does not of have the capabilities to survive on her own. Even, if put back into a zoo setting, Koko so used to her human acquaintances would most likely become depressed and withdrawn. Must every animal show such advanced capabilities in learning and communicating in order to be seen as deserving some kind of rights?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that one of the major problems with discussing animal rights is in using the word rights to describe a need for environmental and animal awareness and harmonious coexistence. Rights is a loaded word and is impossible to apply across the board towards animals and even humans. As Americans I think we are obsessed with the concept of rights and even we do not totally comprehend the word. Rights is sketchy in outlining exactly what people deserve and what they can do. I think in terms of animals, on our side, it falls to moral obligation to treat them with respect and to allow them to live out their natural functions. Similarly I think humans have taken the word rights too far in our own culture and need to re-evaluate its meaning.
ReplyDelete