By Arie Kizel
Philosophy
with Children, which centers on animals, can make a significant contribution to children's and adolescents’ understanding of the dilemma: are animals at the service of human beings (and therefore also provide them with entertainment), or can human beings live peacefully with or coexist with animals? This text aims to offer those involved in this area the key points, each of which, in one way or another, can serve as material for teachers and community moderators, or
even be discussed within the community of philosophical inquiry with children
and adolescents.
A good start will be Patrick Curry[1],
who defines Anthropocentrism as a discourse focused on human
rights and needs, according to which human beings are granted unjust
privileges, without any moral consideration to other life forms. Joseph Des
Jardins[2]
focuses the anthropocentric theme on an ethical/moral discourse on rights and
obligations related to man's attitude towards the living environment
surrounding him. Arne Naess[3]
claims that for those with an anthropocentric approach, the right to life and prosperity is exclusive to human beings since, according to this approach, only men/women are capable of making moral judgments, and therefore only they have the right to
enjoy morality.
Communities of philosophical inquiry
can offer the strongest opposition to the anthropocentric approach: the
animal rights movement. In this context, another important text is Peter
Singer's book Animal
Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals[4] , in
which Singer
discusses the issue of applying the principle of equality between human beings to all Animals. He bases this recognition on equality as a moral principle. For
Singer, the suffering of a living organism is essential, and thus, when a
non-human suffers, there is no moral justification to ignore such suffering, as
one should not ignore suffering caused to human beings.
Richard Ryder[5]
was the first to introduce the term "Speciesism,"
and by tying it to the linguistic pattern of "Racism," he gave it
social, political, and moral contexts. According to Ryder, prejudice stemming
from a misconception of race and biological sex should be equally treated by human beings, and as you should not cause harm to innocents based on racial perceptions, it should not be done to animals based on perceptions of a genus.
Tom Regan[6]
follows Singer’s footsteps. However, his assumptions about the moral status of animals differ. His philosophical arguments, which can facilitate community of inquiry discussions, seek to recognize the mental life of animals and their capacity for awareness and consciousness, thus opposing René Descartes's view that animals are soulless machines.
Are animals capable of thinking? Steven
Best[7]
differentiates "Animal Studies" from "Critical Animal
Studies," claiming there are deep ties between animal oppression and exploitation
to the oppression of different population groups; arguing superficiality to the
existence of animals in the world, according to which they function as
"others" who are incapable of thought in general and rational thought in particular.
A focal question during a community
of philosophical inquiry can be "Why look at animals?"[8]
which is discussed in John Berger's book About Observation[9].
Berger argues that in modern Western society, animals have become objects for human observation, while their perspectives are insignificant to humans.
He analyzes zoos as a cultural phenomenon, claiming they are an animalistic
illusion since the animals serve as images/representations of what they were or
could be, were they not mere objects. Berger refers to the link between
childhood and animals in modern capitalist Western society, arguing that the manufacture of toys as animal reproductions seeks to remove animals from space and to push for their rights from a human perspective.
Key questions that may be discussed
in a community of philosophical inquiry relying on this literature, which deals with the representation of animals, can be:
What is the use we make of animals? Why are certain animals seen in a
positive light while others are viewed in a negative light? Are zoos good for the
animals or for the humans? What is the meaning of imprisoning animals, for them
and for humans? Are human beings obliged
by morality in their actions towards animals?
In order to discuss these questions,
it is necessary that those guiding the community of philosophical inquiry read
materials similar to those suggested in this article and present some of them
to children and adolescents, adapting them, of course, to the appropriate age
group.
Bibliography
Berger, J. (1980) About Looking. New York: Pantheon Book.
Best, S. (2009). “The rise of critical animal studies:
Putting theory into action and animal liberation into higher education”. Journal
of critical Studies, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp. 9 – 52.
Curry, P. (2011). Ecological Ethics: an Introduction.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Naess, A. (1989). Ecology, Community and Lifestyle:
Outline of an Ecosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Regan, T. (1982). All That Dwell Therein: Animal Rights
and Environmental Ethics. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of
California Press.
Regan, T. (1983).The Case for Animal Rights.
Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press.
Ryder, R. D. (1972). “Experiments on animals”. In S.
Godlovitch,. R. Godlovitch& J. Harris (Eds.), Animals, Men and Morals: An
Enquiry into the Maltreatment of Non-Humans (pp. 41-82). New York:
Taplinger Publishing.
Ryder, R. D. (2000). Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes
towards Speciesism. New York: Berg.
Singer, P. (1975) Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for
Our Treatment of Animals. New York:
Harper Collins
Notes
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה