>Except for quantum-mechanical processes, I believe it's
>always possible to construe behavior as determined; so one
>can claim that non-human animals, or all animals including
>humans, are merely complex machines. It appears to me,
>however, than non-human animals are willful and I take
>them to be such until they are proved otherwise.
It's always possible to construe behaviors as determined, but that doesn't mean they are. Just because a physical state precedes a behavior doesn't mean that physical state caused that behavior. If a different behavior had followed, we would claim that *this* behavior was "determined" by the physical state.
The notion that animals are complex machines is not grounded in observation. It's an assumption, an article of faith in the "religion of technology," as David Noble puts it. The prophet of this faith is Rene Descartes:
"If we possessed a thorough knowledge of all the parts of the seed of any species of animal (e.g. man), we could from that alone, by reasons entirely mathematical and certain, deduce the whole figure and conformation of each of its members, and, conversely, if we knew several peculiarities of this conformation, we could from these deduce the nature of its seed."
This assertion remains unproven to this day. In the last half century we've learned a great deal about DNA, but we still have no empirical basis for the claim that this genetic seed determines the form of the organism or even the form of a single protein. We know DNA determines sequences of amino acids, but we don't know why amino acid chains fold into the four-level structure of protein. All we know for sure is that the chemical properties of the amino acid chain do not determine how it folds. The chain simply "knows" how to fold. Every level of structure beyond protein is exactly the same way. Aside from a few mechanical functions, everything in the body simply "knows" what it's supposed to do. It's a mystery.
We don't like mysteries. We like to be in control, and control implies certainty. Descartes' explicit aim was to make men "lords and possessors of nature." Descartes thought animals were like clocks, and he liked to dissect their heads to see what made them tick. He also liked to dissect hearts:
"If you slice off the pointed end of the heart in a live dog, and insert a finger into one of the cavities, you will feel unmistakably that every time the heart gets shorter, it presses the finger, and every time it gets longer it stops pressing it."
A dog gave its life so Descartes could learn that. But he didn't have to feel any remorse. Among its many virtues, the mechanistic interpretation of life serves to protect scientists from feeling guilty about experiments on animals.
An animal is a manifestation of the species to which it belongs. Though each animal is unique, it's still just a variation on the same theme. The essence of evolution is self-creation. Species create themselves, and animals-- like plants and bacteria-- are self-determinative at the species level. But humans are self-determinative even as individuals. Every human is like a species unto herself. This is what consciousness has done for us. It has given us each a self-nature beyond our species-nature.
>>So there's no philosophical basis for the idea that
>> it's wrong to keep animals, even chimps, as pets. Obviously they should
be
>> treated with the same respect that's due to all living things. Of
course,
>> living things are prone to eating other living things, so it is not
>> disrespectful to eat the flesh of animals. ...
>
>This rule would permit us to kill and eat the flesh of
>cannibals, so I think it might be questionable, although there
>is a certain justice in it. To be perfectly fair, however,
>only practicing carnivores could be consumed, and only if they
>were taken by the same means they themselves employ, that is,
>bodily force rather than the paid employment of abattoirs and
>butchers, and only if there were no alternative meal, as is
>the case with most practicing carnivores. One might note as
>well that carnivores do not usually imprison their prey --
>but maybe that's what you mean by "disrespect".
I didn't express myself clearly. The reason it's okay to eat carnivores is not because they also eat animals, but because eating other living things is the way of life. The defining characteristic of life-- that which distinguishes it from nonlife-- is death. Unless you're a chloroplast, you kill to live. But you don't kill a person to obtain life any more than you kill an entire species. It's just not good manners.
>The fact is, the meat industry is a Sierra Nevada of misery,
>torture, and death for innumerable beings who may be as
>capable of suffering as you or I, but who almost certainly
>lack our capacity to mitigate immediate pain by telling
>ourselves fables about better worlds and benevolent gods.
>It is probably better not to think about it if one values
>one's tranquility; but one might also tolerate, if not
>support, those who can take up the monstrous burden.
Suffering is a function of the animal mind, that is, the unreflective mind. Not only do animals suffer as much as we do, they have no means of overcoming it. We can overcome it, but telling ourselves fables of better worlds is not the way to do it. This is just a more subtle form of what animals do, which is to resist pain and try to escape from it. At least according to Zen, it's our will to escape from pain, instead of merely accepting it, that causes our suffering (that, and our craving for pleasure). Zen teaches this not through words but through experience. After awhile, sitting still is painful. If you're doing a retreat, with ten hours of sitting and walking meditation a day, you quickly learn that the only way to survive is to stop resisting the pain. Stop moving, and stop trying to force the pain out of your mind. Once you accept it completely, it no longer causes anguish. You still feel it, but it no longer feels "bad." Suffering is a figment of the imagination. Lacking awareness of mentality, animals are imprisoned in their imaginations. Only humans can gain genuine freedom.
Ted