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 progressive nature of our humanity is demonstrated through the independent development of new morals and perspectives within each individual throughout their day to day life. This natural inclination to evolve and expand, physically and psychologically, is the process of discovery. The importance of discovery is evident in Ivan Mahoney’s 2011 trilogical documentary ‘Go Back To Where You Came From’ and is further supported by Matt Ottley’s 2008 graphic novel ‘Requiem for a Beast’. Both texts explore fresh experiences that allow individuals to reassess their former perspectives of self and society. These transformations can be a result of challenging undertakings, conflict between differing views, and physical isolation. (don’t list) It
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 which he describes the encounter between a man and a mouse, consequently, the writer determinates that there is certain connection between them, and that the mouse has also capacity to have thoughts, feel love and compassion. The connection between them is compared “a child of God” and the “holy creature” (Steiner 846). The writer concludes that as conscious beings, both individuals have the same level of dignity, therefore, the use of animals as food is considered an “unforgiveable”
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.
“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.
In Jeff VanderMeer’s Annihilation, the author makes certain that the environment, laws, and beings of “Area X” are alienated and abnormal compared to the rest of Earth. However, the perplexing world created by Vandermeer is not meant only to create a sense of estrangement, but to force a reconsideration of what the concept of humanity actually means. The definition of humanity is broadened through the unique lense of the book, and the author suggests that human society must be thought of more in terms of the natural environment which it destroys. The Biologist, as we get to know her, is central in VanderMeer’s challenge to the commonly held conception of humanity, due to her literal transformation away from being a purely “human” specimen.
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.
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.
“The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality.”(Arthur Schopenhauer)
Anthropocentrism has been a central belief upon which modern human society has been constructed. The current state of the world, particularly the aspects that are negative, are reflective of humans continuously acting in ways that are in the interest of our own species. As environmental issues have worsened in recent decades, a great number of environmentalists are turning away from anthropocentric viewpoints, and instead adopting more ecocentric philosophies. Although anthropocentrism seems to be decreasing in popularity due to a widespread shift in understanding the natural world, philosopher William Murdy puts forth the argument that anthropocentrism still has relevancy in the context of modern environmental thought. In the following essay, I will explain Murdy’s interpretation of anthropocentrism and why he believes it to be an acceptable point of
Armstrong, Susan Jean, and Richard George Botzler. The Animal Ethics Reader. London ;New York, NY: Routledge, 2008. Print.
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.
In this essay, I will discuss and define both speciesism and moral individualism in Paola Cavalieri’s book, The Animal Question. Additionally, I will provide my opinion on which is the strongest argument for speciesism and why I still disagree with it. Speciesism is the belief that humans are inherently superior to all other animals, solely based on their species membership. This widely held belief is used to justify the blatant discrimination of nonhuman animals, resulting in a lack of moral rights and the exploitation of defenseless beings. This view, that humans are of special moral status, is constantly attempted to be rationalized in various ways.
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,
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