Donna Haraway’s (2008) ‘When Species Meet’ is a post human analysis of the categorisation of the world into human and non-human, questioning the divisions that define contemporary Western society. Chapter twelve, ‘Parting Bites’ summarises her work, a critical evaluation of the dichotomy between animals seen as companion animals and pets, and animals that aren’t. She focuses on the ‘technocultural’ climate of today, proposing the notion of ‘companion species,’ a coming together of more than just humans and animals; technologies, organisms and landscapes are among those that she argues ‘break bread’ together with humans (Haraway 2008:95). This comes under her main goal - ‘alterglobalisation’ and ‘autre- mondialisation’ – changing the world from …show more content…
In proposing ‘companion species’ she is not suggesting all animals and humans live in perfect harmony without killing one another. She acknowledges that to ‘break bread’ as species does not mean to not kill – ‘outside Eden, eating means also killing, directly or indirectly, and killing well is an obligation akin to eating well.’ She analyses the ‘calculus of suffering,’ as even in companion species suffering cannot be removed. The fundamental question that comes with de-bunking human exceptionalism is asked – who, if not animals nor humans, can be eaten for survival? Calling this a cosmopolitical dilemma, the ‘burden of assigning who lives and who dies and how,’ Haraway (2008) does not attempt to provide a conclusive answer. Instead, she embraces the contradictions that embody the ‘simultaneously true and unharmonizable’ facts that accompany companion species. She accepts the unsolvable dilemma of who in the universe is worthy or not worthy of life, comparing her colleagues’ differing but intersecting views on animals. One, a hunter, one not, both holding a deep love for animals, with the same knowledge and credentials, Haraway (2008) argues that despite their differing views on hunting, ‘[they] do not embody contradictions. Rather, they embody finite, demanding, affective, and cognitive claims on me and the world, both sets of which require action and respect without …show more content…
Chapter twelve, ‘Parting Bites’ is a thought-provoking final chapter to summarise the book, encapsulating the ideas that run throughout and evidencing them with anecdotes and ethnography. Through these evidences of the pervasive nature of human exceptionalism, her goal of alterglobalisation is clear and well-reasoned. The transdisciplinary approach is reminiscent of that which is called for in the fight against climate change, and her adamancy of human impact on the world (calling for a new globalisation) clearly links to this, as she argues humans need to go back to nature to have any chance of reversing the damage we have done, and prevent anymore from happening. Overall, the idea of human exceptionalism no longer seems a given, as Haraway (2008) has helped readers to question what makes up our
The long-term aim is to develop an approach to ethics that will help resolve contemporary issues regarding animals and the environment. In their classical formulations and as recently revised by animal and environmental ethicists, mainstream Kantian, utilitarian, and virtue theories have failed adequately to include either animals or the environment, or both. The result has been theoretical fragmentation and intractability, which in turn have contributed, at the practical level, to both public and private indecision, disagreement, and conflict. Immensely important are the practical issues; for instance, at the public level: the biologically unacceptable and perhaps cataclysmic current rate of species extinctions, the development or preservation of the few remaining wilderness areas, the global limitations on the sustainable distribution of the current standard of living in the developed nations, and the nonsustainability and abusiveness of today's technologically intense crop and animal farming. For individuals in their private lives, the choices include, for example: what foods to eat, what clothing to wear, modes of transportation, labor-intensive work and housing, controlling reproduction, and the distribution of basic and luxury goods. What is needed is an ethical approach that will peacefully resolve these and other quandaries, either by producing consensus or by explaining the rational and moral basis for the continuing disagreement.
Christopher McCandless, a young American who was found dead in summer of 1992 in wild land in Alaska, wrote in his diary about his moral struggle regarding killing a moose for survival. According to Jon Krakauer’s Into the Wild, Chris had to abandon most of the meat since he lacked the knowledge of how to dismantle and preserve it (166-168). Not only did he have a moral dilemma to kill a moose, but also had a deep regret that a life he had taken was wasted because of his own fault. He then started recognizing what he ate as a precious gift from the nature and called it “Holy Food” (Krakauer 168). Exploring relationships between human beings and other animals arouses many difficult questions: Which animals are humans allowed to eat and which ones are not? To which extent can humans govern other animals? For what purposes and on which principles can we kill other animals? Above all, what does it mean for humans to eat other animals? The answer may lie in its context. Since meat-eating has been included and remained in almost every food culture in the world throughout history and is more likely to increase in the future due to the mass production of meat, there is a very small chance for vegetarianism to become a mainstream food choice and it will remain that way.
Frands de Waal is a world leading primatologist, author of The Ape of the Sushi Master, who decided to inform everyday people about his cultural reflections regarding his theory of survival of the kindest. He questions the popular theory of survival of the fittest with his own scientific observations. He allows us to explore the animal kingdom with his observations as he informs his audience on his theory. Waal claims that animal species rely on altruism which is acts of kindness in order to survive. Throughout his book he supports his claim by using rhetorical strategies (list) this appeals to the audience (appeals, trust in him as author,feelings) ultimately make his main argument persuasive.
“Is it right, in the deepest moral sense, for one conscious being to eat another?” Throughout Eating Apes, Dale Peterson takes the readers through what he experienced, saw, and the issues presented with trying to protect the apes to gear us to answer that question. He was able to do this with the stories of Karl Ammann, who took the photographs presented in the book, and Joseph Melloh, a gorilla hunter from Cameroon. Prior to taking this class, my knowledge of apes going extinct went as far as being aware that we needed to save them from extinction. However, I was unaware of neither how brutal apes were treated nor how pivotal they were to people in Central Africa’s diet – until I began reading Eating Apes. Eating Apes is a descriptive but difficult book to read through that describes why the ape population was diminishing and the various stakeholders involved.
The last decade of the twentieth century in America saw a rise in programs for human’s “self betterment.” A popular form of betterment is that of the inner animal. Interest in Native American animal mysticism, vision quests, and totem animals have increased dramatically in the past few years. No forms of media have been spared; Calvin Klein’s supermodels come on during sitcom commercials to tell viewers they need to be a beast, or to get in touch with their animal within. In the last decade of the nineteenth century, however, animalism was viewed not as a method of self-improvement but as the reprehensible side of humanity that lingered beneath the surface, waiting for an opportune time to come out and play. In Frank Norris’ novel McTeague, humans are no better than the beasts they claim to control. They cage and torment defenseless creatures, but cage and torment themselves far, far, worse. McTeague, Trina, Zerkow, and Marcus are animals in thin human’s clothing, walking the forests of McTeague, waiting for the opportunity to shed their skin and tear each other apart, while the real animals of the world continue leading lives far superior to their human counterparts.
In the article of "Why do species matters?" by Lilly-Marlene Russow, the author establish the desire of species,, why individuals tend to treat living being (creature) distinctively in light of the fact that they are an alternate animal groups; and furthermore treat certain creatures of an animal groups with more thought. She additionally emphasize on the issue which is figuring out what commitments a man may have toward one creature over another.Russow argues that one commitment toward animals for some is to secure declining or endangered species, yet this does not really stretch out to the whole types of that animal. As indicated
In his article The Modern Hunter-Gatherer, Michael Pollan recounts the events that took place during his first hunting trip. Both during and after the hunt, Pollan struggles with an array of emotions that he conveys directly with his audience. From this struggle, a moral complication is formed regarding the direct relationship of death between humans and animals. By not giving a direct answer regarding the question he introduces of whether animals and humans experience death in the same way, Pollan leaves his text open to interpretation which ultimately forces his audience to view hunting through a more challenging, introspective lens.
In his essay, The Ethics of Respect for Nature, Paul Taylor presents his argument for a deontological, biocentric egalitarian attitude toward nature based on the conviction that all living things possess equal intrinsic value and are worthy of the same moral consideration. Taylor offers four main premises to support his position. (1) Humans are members of the “Earth’s community of life” in the same capacity that nonhuman members are. (2) All species exist as a “complex web of interconnected elements” which are dependent upon one another for their well-being. (3) Individual organisms are “teleological centers of life” which possess a good of their own and a unique way in which to pursue it. (4) The concept that humans are superior to other species is an unsupported anthropocentric bias.
Author Yuval Noah Harari has a unique way of reviewing the past fourteen billion years in his monograph Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. His intention for writing this book is mainly to bring up the conversation of the human condition and how it has affected the course of history. In this case, the human condition coincides with the inevitable by-products of human existence. These include life, death, and all the emotional experiences in between. Harari is trying to determine how and why the events that have occurred throughout the lives of Homo Sapiens have molded our social structures, the natural environment we inhabit, and our values and beliefs into what they are today.
Armstrong, Susan Jean, and Richard George Botzler. The Animal Ethics Reader. London ;New York, NY: Routledge, 2008. Print.
The term serves as an alternate for other phrases referring to the era of modern man, such as “anthropocene” or “capitolocene,” which Haraway disagrees with. Rather than the ominous implications of the anthropocene and capitalocene, the Chthulucene is precarious, but not yet doomed because it consists of “ongoing multispecies stories and practices.” The concept of the Chthulucene implies a one-ness shared by all beings, human and non-human. By rejecting the anthropocene and capitolocene, Haraway also rejects the notion that dictates define the age we are currently living. “Anthro-“ and “capital-“ place a certain amount of blame on single entities, namely humans and capitalism, but in the rest of her work, Haraway suggests that recognizing unity and networks is ultimately more important than assigning fault. While the other terms seem to identify a cause for the modern age, Haraway’s Chtulucene emphasizes a method of thinking about and living with the present. In Haraway’s view, the Chtulucene is a vital part of reimagining our existence in the world. She goes on to discuss “tentacular thinking” and “making kin” as other aspects that are key to creating a sustainable world. In order to continue existing,
The biocentric worldview, which is life centered, focuses on the importance of all living things and considers all living things to have intrinsic value. I will be using Peter Singer’s ideas as the main focus explaining that animals share equal moral status with human beings and that therefore is unethical for people to kill and eat them. In “All Animals are Equal” by Peter Singer recognizes that there are differences between humans and other species. As he ...
A human induced global ecological crisis is occurring, threatening the stability of this earth and its inhabitants. The best path to address environmental issues both effectively and morally is a dilemma that raises concerns over which political values are needed to stop the deterioration of the natural environment. Climate change; depletion of resources; overpopulation; rising sea levels; pollution; extinction of species is just to mention a few of the damages that are occurring. The variety of environmental issues and who and how they affect people and other species is varied, however the nature of environmental issues has the potential to cause great devastation. The ecological crisis we face has been caused through anthropocentric behavior that is advantageous to humans, but whether or not anthropocentric attitudes can solve environmental issues effectively is up for debate. Ecologism in theory claims that in order for the ecological crisis to be dealt with absolutely, value and equality has to be placed in the natural world as well as for humans. This is contrasting to many of the dominant principles people in the contemporary world hold, which are more suited to the standards of environmentalism and less radical approaches to conserving the earth. I will argue in this essay that whilst ecologism could most effectively tackle environmental problems, the moral code of ecologism has practical and ethical defects that threaten the values and progress of anthropocentricism and liberal democracy.
“Man is the highest rated animal, at least among all the animals who returned the questionnaire (Brault, 2009).” For years humans have been using animals for experimentation, food, clothing, sport and entertainment, manual labor, and let us not forget man’s best friend. The unethical treatment of animals can best be resolved by deontology contrasted with ethical egoism.
Humans place themselves at the top of the sociological tier, close to what we as individuals call our pets who have a sentimental value in our lives. Resource animal’s on the other hand have a contributory value within our lives: they provide us with meat and other important resources. In order to determine the boundaries between how we treat animals as pets and others simply as resources, utilitarians see these “resource animals” as tools. They contemplate the welfare significances of animals as well as the probable welfares for human-beings. Whereas deontologists see actions taken towards these “resources animals” as obligations regardless of whom or what they harm in the process. The objection to these theories are, whose welfare are we