A Defense of Animal Consciousness
In this world, there are countless instances of violence against animals and violations of ethics being acted and positioned on a basis that there is some expressed differences between human consciousness and the “rights” that are transferred to us because of this autonomy of mind and the dismissal of animal rights and ethics transferred to non-human beings, due to an “apparent” lack of meeting this criteria. While this is not a professional attempt to destroy the philosophical inaccuracies of those that wage war against the protection of ethics toward animals, it is my general discussion with the world of a few simple problems of this foolish logic. This format is simply meant to educate on the behalf of animal welfare and our duty to treat our fellow beings with virtue and ethical expressions.
At a later time, I will issue formal and deadly attacks that will be sound and encased in irrefutable logic against those who do not treat animals and all nature of life (plants, trees, etc.) with respect and ethical intent.
I will begin this discussion with an argument that can be used against the ethical treatment of animals (and is being discussed in the higher levels of philosophical inquiry) and I will “softly” expose some problems of this logic. I say, “Soft” because I am holding back the deadly viciousness of true philosophical attacks that stem from my personal philosophy for those strong opponents of these ethical considerations. In other words, when I “bite,” I intend to “bite through” and end the debate, once and for all, but in order to do this, I need the correct platform and background (which I am currently working on—my Ph. D, etc.)
One attempt at distancing humans from all other creatures/known beings, is done through the use of language and expression or representation of comprehension (which is an inherent application of language). The argument is made that humans demonstrate the clear ability to create and utilize any meta-language to act as a valid and accurate means to express and discuss an object language or idea, so that the contents of one’s mind/thoughts can be readily understood by an external mind. This implies a type of structure and logic in language that demonstrates an autonomy separate from the simple symbols/signs of the animal kingdom (or even the plant kingdom and its chemical signals).
Basically, we (humans) can create an infinitely new sentence/meaning that can be immediately and readily comprehended by foreign minds (assuming we speak the same meta-language), because we follow a logical structure (syntax) and the meaning (semantics) is transferred through this syntax. Animals, on the other hand, it is argued, cannot do this. They are said to only be able to identify a set number of meanings with a limited amount of sound/expression variance (basically, it is limited). This is partly due to a lack of logical sentence structuring and the ability to use propositions. In more basic terms, it is considered more limited than a computational language, like the one used in basic computer systems that run on formal logic and its set of rules to generate codes and strings of sentences that represent a meaning, or series of meanings. (Think binary codes and the nearly infinite expressions based on “0” and “1”)
This argument is not the most compelling or even the most well-known counter to animal rights, the average Joe Public has no idea that this exists, let alone can they comprehend the depth of philosophical implications that this logic represents. I chose to present this argument in a strong light and with potentially strong reasoning to “play fair.” I, however, have major problems with this type of reasoning as “proof” or justification against animal ethics/animal autonomy.
I will only delve into a few of these concerns; the most deadly, I will save for the real battle against the naysayers.
1) This idea of using a meta-language to identify and analyze an object language does not solve the problem of hermeneutic limitations of reference. (A simple example of this is assuming that all communication in the world is done via sound waves—or more accurately, in ways that we, as humans, can measure it. Another problem in this same realm is the assumption that a pause in an animal’s choice means of sound expression is meaningless and does not “link” words/ideas together to form basic—or even complex—sentences of communication)
2) Another recent discovery—that of mirror neurons—also poses some severe issues for the kind of logic that went into the earlier argument. Mirror neurons act as receivers of intent and actions that fire in the same manner as the external stimulation being observed. I am not writing a professional paper or engaging in scholarly debates, so I will assume that, if the reader is interested in the nature of mirror neurons, they will seek further reading and study into them. It will be well worth your time, I assure you. However, I will say that mirror neurons, even across species, act as a type of communication and thus prove a type of uniformity of an a priori comprehension or, better put, something we all have in common. While I will not place a huge importance on the mirror neurons as the key argument, it does serve to disprove the earlier assumption as well as hints at something that is “linking” to living beings (and frankly, hints at many other esoteric topics of interest that spark my curiosity).
3) The ability to structure a chain of words/sounds into an infinite potential of meaning is questionable as an instrument of criticism against the ability and/or potential of animals to communicate among one another or even across species. As it is known, humans see, hear, smell in a limited spectrum and thus, the world we (humans) understand is tainted by this limitation and the mere necessity of human beings’ lifestyle compels us to act/respond in a particular manner, which includes many avenues of complex expression. Perhaps, animals have not developed a similar complex system of communication because the unique limitation that is their perception-base does not require them to do so. Species of animals and all matter of life have developed their own unique and complex systems of their own communication (as complex as is needed, but nothing more—as is the basis point of what is normal in a state of nature).
This separation, which is created to distance those who claim animals and other beings have no similar rights to ethical treatment, as humans do, forget that this complexity of language and its infinite expression has been due to the “unnatural” progression against a state of nature. I say, “unnatural,” not as is defined by the definition, for we are all of nature and our actions are always “natural,” but what I am referring to is our turn against the state of nature and into a civilization.
This disease of mind; caused not by the acceptance of civilization, but of distancing ourselves from the fellow beings that we share our existence with, has quickly deteriorated our present existence. However, this discussion must be limited to the topic at hand and so, I digress. This is not my attempt to solve the ethical concerns and this is not my formal response to those who deny animal rights; this is merely a simple discussion of a single argument and how it begs the question and serves to educate those interested in animal rights and the philosophical positioning that can be utilized.
A great deal of my philosophy will cover these concerns as I develop my system of ethics that protects nature and animals (humans included) as well as a new system of business ethics and human virtue ethics—combined with Native American ethics (as it is also a human system of ethics that has become lost). Look for this in the near future, but for now, this should suffice to get the mind going. Never forget to treat the world ethically and respectfully.
Copyright (C) 2013 Arcane Ravenwolf
