The Lives of Animals by J.M. Coetzee presents, what I think of as, the better arguments for animal rights. I do not believe that there is any actual logical argument against either the eating of meat or cruelty of animals in general. Every argument for animal rights is essentially an appeal to emotion, which is foundationally fallacious. However, this does not mean that I do not believe that ethical arguments can be made on this subject. These arguments simply need to be identified and taken in as what they truly are, emotional appeals. There is nothing wrong with emotional appeals, most of the time this is what our personal ethics are comprised of anyway. Logic does not always sink into the real world, and the character Elizabeth, from Coetzee’s book realizes this. She makes her arguments as emotional appeals, but recognizes them for what they are. She makes claims about the repugnance of eating animal flesh, and attempts sway people by playing on emotions, such as sympathy. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the way she argues. Although her arguments are not logical they still have a point. Is eating animal flesh immoral due to it’s repugnancy? Although this type of argument, being based on affections rather than rationality, is not effective as an argument that can stop proponents of it’s antithesis from eating meat, it is effective as a means of swaying the undecided. After all, if someone cannot handle the thought of meat being called ‘flesh’ or cannot even remotely think of the hamburger on their plate as a once living creature, then they probably find it immoral to eat meat on some level. Essentially, Elizabeth’s argument is good at making people realize what they actually believe, but it cannot convince someone who holds the contrary opinion.
Another interesting aspect of Coetzee’s book is Elizabeth’s denouncing of human rationality as a privileged insight into the world. It’s a particularly modern notion to claim that rationality, and therefore the human perspective, are not the absolute best way of looking at the world. While it is true that logic and rationality are flawed, I find it hard to understand that people would denounce these modes of thought. Rationality is how the human mind is structured, and while it may not be perfect, it is the only way we can think, and the only way we can formulate arguments. Because logic and rationality are the only way we can argue it is the only way we can get an actual point across. This is the reason that Elizabeth will be unable to convince most people to stop eating meat; her arguments are not rational. That does not mean her opinion is wrong, it simply means that her opinion cannot ever be considered fact. Also, rationality leads to the discovery of theories that sync into the real world. We, as human beings, are capable of formulating natural laws. No other animal can do this. While I realize that this argument should not be the basis for claims about whether or not animals should be eaten, it still makes a point about humanities insight into the world. Because our theories about the world, derived rationally, can be used to produce results, we can assume that we have some insight into the workings of nature. Also, because humans are the only animal that are capable of doing this, it can be argued that we have a privileged insight into the world. Are insight might not necessarily be ‘better’ than an animals but it is more versatile and productive. Essentially, I think that it does not make sense to argue that our view of things, is not as insightful as an animals. I agree that rationality is not a good justification for the argument that humans are superior to animals, however I think that a rational human mind is more insightful than an animal’s mind. Because of this I think that we might be able to find a logical solution to the debate of animal rights.
Chris Roy
0 Responses to “Animal Rights – Emotion Vs. Logic”