On Sentient Nonhumans and Language
It doesn't happen as often as it used to, but I still do get people who claim that we humans are exceptional because we have language. What they really mean is that we are entitled to do what we wish with the natural world and everyone else who lives on it because we have our language. (And by the way, sometimes our glorious language skills are more hindrance than help, but that's not today's topic.)
Perhaps, like me, you've read one of the many books about the communication of sentient nonhumans (or at least that features it), such as those by Jeffrey Masson or Mark Bekoff or Jonathan Balcombe. Other species are communicating–through verbalization–just fine; we simply haven't figured out exactly what they're saying to each other. Anyone with a cat or dog knows how hard they try to get us to understand their language, and they do achieve some level of success. They clearly have awareness of wanting something or having a need and setting out to tell us what that is so we may be of service (for example).
However, there are people who still believe that what nonhumans do is really some kind of involuntary articulation or vocalization, and for them I suggest (thanks to my mom) something I don't get to see because I have only one cat (the death-machine/FIP carrier, Emily), and the feral cats of Project Treadstone don't make a sound . . .
Like you, I subscribe to Francione's approach that rights are an attribute of no other cognitive property than sentience.
It seems that conditions are made in reverse starting with the conclusion that non-human animals do not have rights. So as nhanimals display some of those abilities we thought they didn't posess, (for instance, here's an elephant painting a self-portrait: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He7Ge7Sogrk&eurl=http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=elephant+painting&emb=0&aq=f&feature=player_embedded), we have to keep changing the conditions, not because they're inherently right-worthy, but because they give us the conclusion we want.
I believe all creatures that wear jeans deserve rights. Well, I suppose that means only humans and some chimps.
Also, this kind of reasoning assumes that rights are an inherently human thing that we're charitably giving to non-human animals, like allowing children to sit at the "grown up table". But being human is just our most convenient way for us to understand how those rights are important for all sentient beings.
What an interesting video! I currently only live with one cat who does not like other nonhuman animals so I don't see him chat with others. But, he sure does like to talk with me a lot. I do wish I could understand him better sometimes but I have only had him since I picked him up from where someone dumped him.
My other two (who live with my brother these days) do talk to each other. They also enjoy talking to birds outside… or maybe pretending to be friendly in hopes that they will come into the house. 🙂
Nice blog. As soon as I figure out how to subscribe, I will.
ARPhilo-you can click on "subscribe . . . by e-mail" or "subscribe to the feed, below the bookmark and above the Google search on the right.
Welcome!
Sweet video. Of course animals communicate through vocalization to each other and us. People who refuse to acknowledge this do so because of the implications it opens in recognizing animal interests.
That's very funny Adam about blue jeans and rights. And if all animals did wear jeans they'd yet again change the standard to include "pockets or non", "zippers or buttons", etc. anything to avoid "Rights". And certainly the coupe de gras is always a "soul" which man can't even prove exists – yet it's used often as the final reservation to deny animals the moral consideration that is their due.
I don't like the idea about "giving" animals rights either… Animals already have them. They just aren't being acknowledged.
My dogs did some verbalizing of their own when I played that video 🙂
Their reactions were all over the map. Peedee barked his head off, but he barks at EVERYTHING (and also NOTHING). Jayne, on the other hand, alternated between listening with her head cocked this way and that, and running circles around the desk, whining, searching for the kitties ("food" to her). Rennie barked at Peedee, and Kaylee was totally disinterested. Ralphie did his little ruff-ruff chest puffing, but quickly grew bored.
Five dogs, five different reactions. Unthinking, unfeeling little machines they are not!
I love the "soul" argument, even though as an agnostic, I don't believe in the concept. Humans need souls because we have sinned……..animals don't because they haven't. Sometimes it can be fun turning their "logic" around on them.
I once had a paid fundraiser for the Shriners call me. I told him I wouldn't support the Shriners because they have a traveling circus that uses animals. He said you could tell animals didn't have souls because when a light is shown in their eyes at night, the light reflects back. It was too stupid to even respond to. I could only respond with uproarious laughter.
The concept of soul is an interesting one. Having grown up in a relatively religious family, there is always talk of preparing for the "next life", caring for your "soul".
I ran into some writings….can't even recall what it was, presenting the concept that our bodies live inside our souls….and that it's one soul that we spark into existence from, and where we return when the time is up. Good, bad, dog, elephant, priest, imam, prostitute, gold fish, carrots….came from the same source and ultimately returning to it.
As I aged, I find myself drawn to this thinking than any of the others. Heaven and hell seemed so contrived.