Is it logical to kill animals to nourish ourselves?

Is it logical to kill animals to nourish ourselves? Of course it is logical to prey on animals to nourish ourselves for the purpose of surviving. For thousands of years, humans being have been preying on animals to maintain their survivor in this planet. It is unfortunate that inhabitants of this planet are carnivals; and being carnivals isn’t a voluntary choice, it is natural fact. All carnivals animals prey on other animals for purpose of nourishment. However, human beings have becomes a killing machine in contrast to other animals. Billions of animals are killed every year to nourish ourselves. In this essay, I will examine the differences between humans and other animals, Elisabeth Costello’s views on the lives of animals, and the contrast between Elisabeth Costello’s views (on humans and animals) with Nagel, Descartes, and Aristotle.

For the centuries, Homo sapiens were a part of the food chain. Animals fed on them and they fed on animals at same time. Homo sapiens [humans] lack physical advantages over other animals. It had to fight for its life with predators whose bodies were built for hunting and killing. On the other hand, Homo sapiens have the ability to speak while other animals don’t. The ability to speak has distinguished humans from other species on this planet. After centuries of evolution, humans have won the race of evolution for power among other species. We [humans] developed intellect and moral sensibilities and became more intelligent than any other animals on the planet. We [humans] developed the ability to utilize small tools and create weapons for both protection and nourishment. On the other hand, humans have become a killing machine; billions of animals are killed every year for nourishment, luxurious, and treatment. Animals’ bodies are used for clothing, medicine, tools, jewelry, and much more. In fact, humans evolve to the point where they feel sense of responsibility for their actions on this planet. One of these responsibilities is the care for other inhabitants of the planet. It is true that some Species had extinct and other Species are in danger of becoming extinct due to humans actions. Some people consider humans actions toward animals as immoral because animals feel pain and suffer just like humans. There have been numerous debates among philosophers and scholars about whether the fact that we consider animals as not endowed with rationality, consciousness or a soul allows us to believe that they are not on an equal footing with ourselves.

Elizabeth Costello, a fictional character of J.M. Coetzee, argues in defense of animals by first presenting an attack on developed reason. Costello is a writer, who had the honors to lead a seminar in Appleton College on two topics: The Philosophers and the Animals and The Poets and the Animals. In the speech on The Philosophers and the Animals, Elizabeth Costello makes an analogy of world war two’s crimes against humanity with meat factories. Millions of people were killed in world war two by Germany’s Nazis regime. People were jailed in what was known as concentration camps, a camp in which human were killed like animals. Of course Germans didn’t feed on their prisoners; thus, human parts were used to produce consume goods such as hairs. In reflection to concentration camps, Elizabeth Costello state that, “we are surrounded by an enterprise of degradation, cruelty and killing which rivals anything that the Third Reich was capable of, indeed dwarfs it, in that ours is an enterprise without end, self-regenerating, bringing rabbits, rats, poultry, live-stock ceaselessly into the world for the purpose of killing them” (J. M. Coetzee pg. 65). Like Germans, but in different purpose, humans use the bodies of animals for nourishment, clothes, jewelries, experimental and much more. Elizabeth Costello argues that Germans were accused of treating their prisoners [humans] like animals. The prisoners of the German concentration camps were though of as animals, thus they had to suffer and die in pain. This notion rise questions to why human mistreats animals. Is it because reason lets us believe that they do not feel pain or do not have a soul, rationality, or consciousness? Of course there is no inquiry about animals’ soul. According to Elizabeth Costello, “To be alive is to be a living soul. An animal – and we are all animals – is an embodied soul” (Coetzee, pg. 78). Living things are recognize if any of the following is present in it: “intellect, perception, moving and stopping with respect to place. Thus, animals have intellect, perception and ability to move and stop with respect to place. According to Aristotle, if an animal has a perception, then there is pain and pleasure and desire. Therefore, animals experience pain just like humans. Is it our reasoning that allows us to discriminate and degrade other animals?

According to Descartes, “The universe is built upon reason. God is a God of reason. The fact that through the application of reason we can come to understand the rules by, which the universe work proves that reason and the universe are of the same being. And the fact that animals lacking reason, cannot understand the universe but have simply to follow its rules blindly, proves that, unlike man, they are part of it but not part of its being; that man is godlike, animals thing like” (J. M. Coetzee pg. 67). Elizabeth Costello does not agree with Descartes’ point of view. She believes that reason comes from a certain spectrum of human thinking. To consider that humans are God-like and animals are thing-like based upon reason is nonsense. Descartes describes an animal as automata. A body made out of many peaces: bones, muscles, nerves, organs, blood, tissues, genes and all others. This machine is unique and much better designed and built than any machine built by humans. Automata acts through disposition of its organs, but not intellect. Animals can never arrange words in order and express opinion or respond to an opinion or question. Animals can imitate humans, for example parrots, they can speak humanly words, however, they do not have any knowledge of what they are speaking of. Even though there are very similar organs and disposition of bodies among animals and humans, animals do not have intellect like humans do. On the other hand, Elizabeth Costello argues that animals have intellect. She employs the record of Sultan, an ape whom the famous German scientist Wolfgang Kohler conducts experiments on to test the level of reasoning. Elizabeth Costello claims Sultan is always aware when he is being tested. “Why is he starving me? What did I do wrong? Why is he testing me?” (J. M. Coetzee pg. 72-73). However, these questions don’t reflect what scientists were looking for. It is impossible to justify an animal’s consciousness when we can’t experience what it is like to be that animal.

Thomas Nagel – the author of “What is it like to be a bat?” argues that to have consciousness is to have an experience. “To know whether an animal has a consciousness we must know what it is like to be that animal”. To know an animal’s consciousness, one must have an animal’s experience. For Nagel, it is impossible for a human to have the consciousness of an animal. While it is possible for one person to know what it is like to be another person. We can comprehend other person’s experience, but we can acknowledge if the person has a consciousness. In contrast, Elizabeth Costello disagrees with Thomas Nagel’s point of view. She state that, “If we are capable of thinking our own death, why on earth should we not be capable of thinking our way into the life of a bat?” despite Nagel’s suggestion that, “we need to be to experience bat life through the sense modalities of a bat”. Elizabeth Costello argues that, “to be a living bat is to be full of being; being fully a bat is like being fully human, which is also to be full of being” (J. M. Coetzee pg. 77). For something to live - to have perception, which means to feel, to have the sense of touch - that something needs to exist. If something exists and it has perception, then it is full of existence, it is what it is. It is a being.

In conclusion, this paper explore the differences between humans and other animals, Elisabeth Costello’s views on the lives of animals, and the contrast between Elisabeth Costello’s views with Nagel, Descartes, and Aristotle. The ability to speak had distinguished humans from other species on this planet. After centuries of evolution, humans developed intellect and moral sensibilities and became more intelligent than any other animals on the planet. We [humans] developed the ability to utilize small tools and create weapons for both protection and nourishment; thus, humans become a killing machine. I examine numerous debates among philosophers and scholars about whether the fact that we consider animals as not endowed with rationality, consciousness or a soul allows us to believe that they are not on an equal footing with ourselves. At the end, we are all animals and we share one planet. We all compete to survive; some are weak, strong, and intelligent but we are all animals. We are neither god-like nor thing-like, we all have a soul and we experience pain, pleasure, and desire.