16 research outputs found
We donât want to know what we know
Why are humans so ignorant with regard to the fundamental gap between ethical claims and the status quo of the human-animal relationship? To answer this, we should include more psychological and sociological perspectives in our discussions
From thinking selves to social selves
I argue that Rowlandsâs concept of pre-reflective self-awareness offers a way to understand animals as Social Selves. It does so because it departs from the orthodox conception of self-awareness, which is both egocentric and logocentric. Instead, its focus is on the relation between consciousness and a personâs lived body, her actions and goals. Characterizing persons as pre-reflectively self-aware beings in Rowlandsâs sense offers a much more useful conceptual tool to interpret social behaviour in animals
What do we owe animals as persons?
Rowlands (2016) concentrates strictly on the metaphysical concept of person, but his notion of animal personhood bears a moral dimension (MonsĂł, 2016). His definition of pre-reflective self-awareness has a focus on sentience and on the lived body of a person as well as on her implicit awareness of her own goals. Interestingly, these also play a key role in animal welfare science, as well as in animal rights theories that value the interests of animals. Thus, Rowlandsâs concept shows connectivity with both major fields of animal ethics. His metaphysical arguments might indeed contain a strong answer to the question of what we owe animals as persons
From thinking selves to social selves
I argue that Rowlandsâs concept of pre-reflective self-awareness offers a way to understand animals as Social Selves. It does so because it departs from the orthodox conception of self-awareness, which is both egocentric and logocentric. Instead, its focus is on the relation between consciousness and a personâs lived body, her actions and goals. Characterizing persons as pre-reflectively self-aware beings in Rowlandsâs sense offers a much more useful conceptual tool to interpret social behaviour in animals
How dogs perceive humans and how humans should treat their pet dogs: Linking cognition with ethics
Humans interact with animals in numerous ways and on numerous levels. We are indeed living in an âanimalâs world,â in the sense that our lives are very much intertwined with the lives of animals. This also means that animals, like those dogs we commonly refer to as our pets, are living in a âhumanâs worldâ in the sense that it is us, not them, who, to a large degree, define and manage the interactions we have with them. In this sense, the human-animal relationship is nothing we should romanticize: it comes with clear power relations and thus with a set of responsibilities on the side of those who exercise this power. This holds, despite the fact that we like to think about our dogs as humanâs best friend. Dogs have been part of human societies for longer than any other domestic species. Like no other species they exemplify the role of companion animals. Relationships with pet dogs are both very widespread and very intense, often leading to strong attachments between owners or caregivers and animals and to a treatment of these dogs as family members or even children. But how does this relationship look from the dogsâ perspective? How do they perceive the humans they engage with? What responsibilities and duties arise from the kind of mutual understanding, attachment, and the supposedly âspecialâ bonds we form with them? Are there ethical implications, maybe even ethical implications beyond animal welfare? The past decades have seen an upsurge of research from comparative cognition on pet dogsâ cognitive and social skills, especially in comparison with and reference to humans. We will therefore set our discussion about the nature and ethical dimensions of the humanâdog relationship against the background of the current empirical knowledge on dog (social) cognition. This allows us to analyze the humanâdog relationship by applying an interdisciplinary approach that starts from the perspective of the dog to ultimately inform the perspective of humans. It is our aim to thereby identify ethical dimensions of the humanâdog relationship that have been overlooked so far
Farm Animal CognitionâLinking Behavior, Welfare and Ethics
Farm animal welfare is a major concern for society and food production. To more accurately evaluate animal farming in general and to avoid exposing farm animals to poor welfare situations, it is necessary to understand not only their behavioral but also their cognitive needs and capacities. Thus, general knowledge of how farm animals perceive and interact with their environment is of major importance for a range of stakeholders, from citizens to politicians to cognitive ethologists to philosophers. This review aims to outline the current state of farm animal cognition research and focuses on ungulate livestock species, such as cattle, horses, pigs and small ruminants, and reflects upon a defined set of cognitive capacities (physical cognition: categorization, numerical ability, object permanence, reasoning, tool use; social cognition: individual discrimination and recognition, communication with humans, social learning, attribution of attention, prosociality, fairness). We identify a lack of information on certain aspects of physico-cognitive capacities in most farm animal species, such as numerosity discrimination and object permanence. This leads to further questions on how livestock comprehend their physical environment and understand causal relationships. Increasing our knowledge in this area will facilitate efforts to adjust husbandry systems and enrichment items to meet the needs and preferences of farm animals. Research in the socio-cognitive domain indicates that ungulate livestock possess sophisticated mental capacities, such as the discrimination between, and recognition of, conspecifics as well as human handlers using multiple modalities. Livestock also react to very subtle behavioral cues of conspecifics and humans. These socio-cognitive capacities can impact human-animal interactions during management practices and introduce ethical considerations on how to treat livestock in general. We emphasize the importance of gaining a better understanding of how livestock species interact with their physical and social environments, as this information can improve housing and management conditions and can be used to evaluate the use and treatment of animals during production
âAgainst the Dog Only a Dogâ. Talking Canines Civilizing Cynicism in Cervantesâ âcoloquio de los perrosâ (With Tentative Remarks on the Discourse and Method of Animal Studies)
Deriving its designation from the Greek word for âdogâ, cynicism is likely the
only philosophical âinterest groupâ with a diachronically dependable affinity
for various animalsâparticularly those of the canine kind. While dogs have met
with differing value judgments, chiefly along a perceived humanâanimal divide,
it is specifically discourses with cynical affinities that render problematic
this transitional field. The Cervantine âcoloquio de los perrosâ has received
scholarly attention for its (caninely) picaresque themes, its âcynomorphicâ
(Ziolkowski) narratological technique, its socio-historically informative
accounts relating to Early Modern Europe and the Iberian peninsula, including
its âzoopoeticallyâ (Derrida) relevant portrayal of dogs (see e.g., Alves,
Beusterien, MartĂn); nor did the dialogâs mention of cynical snarling go
unnoticed. The essay at hand commences with a chapter on questions of method
pertaining to âanimal narrationâ: with recourse to Montaigne, Descartes, and
Derrida, this first part serves to situate the ensuing close readings with
respect to the field of Animal Studies. The analysis of the Cervantine texts
synergizes thematic and narratological aspects at the discourse historical
level; it commences with a brief synopsis of the respective novellas in part
2; Section 3, Section 4 and Section 5 supply a description of the rhetorical
modes of crafting plausibility in the framework narrative (âThe Deceitful
Marriageâ), of pertinent (Scriptural) intertexts for the âColloquyâ. Parts 6â7
demonstrate that the choice of canine interlocutors as narrating agenciesâand
specifically in their capacity as dogsâis discursively motivated: no other
animal than this animal, and precisely as animal, would here serve the
discursive purpose that is concurrently present with the literal plane; for
this dialogic novella partakes of a (predominantly Stoicizing) tradition
attempting to resocialize the Cynics, which commences already with the
appearance of the Ancient arch-Cynic âDiogenesâ on the scene. At the
discursive level, a diachronic contextualization evinces that the Cervantine
text takes up and outperforms those rhetorical techniques of reintegration by
melding Christian, Platonic, Stoicizing elements with such as are reminiscent
of Diogenical ones. Reallocating Blumenbergâs reading of a notorious Goethean
dictum, this essay submits the formula âagainst the Dog only a dogâ as a
concise précis of the Cervantine method at the discursive level, attained to
via a decidedly pluralized rhetorical sermocination featuring, at a literal
level, specifically canine narrators in a dialogic setting