We, humans, do not live alone in this world. We are
surrounded by other creatures, creatures that play a functional role in our
survival. Thus we have a duty to take care of the animals (especially from a
utilitarian point of view): our productivity largely depends on their
perpetuation. However we also share resources with them; plants, flowers, water
etc. are a basic need for all animals, human and nonhuman, and they are
fundamental in the maintenance of the world, of the circle of life.
Martha Nussbaum in her chapter believes in extending
the “mechanism of basic justice, entitlement and law across the species
barrier” (326). She criticizes Kantian social contract theories because of
their commitment to rationality and of their conception of political principles
derived from a contract among rough equals (327). Thus they deny obligations of
justice towards nonhuman animals; the capabilities approach instead provides
better theoretical guidance to the issue of animal entitlements. It recognizes
a wide range of types of animal dignity and corresponding needs for flourishing
since it takes into consideration the variety of activities and goals that
different creatures pursue (327).
Despite the author’s virtuous will, her view is highly
problematic because of its impracticality and lack of necessity. The social
theory contract arises from a reality in which individuals by interacting among
each other organize themselves into political societies. Individuals became
citizens tied through a legal system of rights and duties. Hence when we
discuss justice and law not only entitlements are involved but also
obligations; how can this relationship, between the two forces, be balanced
when extended to the other species? How can you decide nonhuman’s
responsibilities?
Nussbaum thinks of animals in terms of agents and
subjects that seek a flourishing existence (337); however she seems to forget
one of her most crucial points in her entire discourse: the subjects in this
case would not be represented during the decision making process. She justifies
this point by arguing that the two questions, “who makes the laws and
principles” and “for whom are the laws and principles made”, can be treated
separately (349). Precisely from this position the problem of Nussbaum’s
theory, and ultimately of democracy, arises: the total of subjective opinions
becomes the objective one and because it is treated so, it is applied all over.
If we were to take into consideration the different opinions people, cultures
and religions have on animals and on their function, we would find divergences
that are irresolvable. National rules can be implemented, but a general
consensus stands far away from the reality in which we live.
Furthermore the nonhuman animal community is already
shaped by laws; these laws follow the survival of the fittest. Although they
are not necessarily ‘just’ (since they do not provide equal opportunity), we
nevertheless find an order inherent in its perpetuation. This is not to say
that Nussbaum is not correct in the provision of regulations regarding the
treatment of animals; however the process of extending the mechanism of basic
justice, entitlement and law should end at the point where the animal’s well
being is met. Jewish law presents an example on the practicality of such
notion. In the discussion of whether animal experimentation is biblically or
rabbinically legal, Rabbi Caro declares that there must be a real objective. If
the benefit to scientific knowledge is negligible, trivial or minor and other
means can be approached to have the same final conclusion, animal
experimentation is not allowed.[i]
This argument demonstrates how the nonhuman species can be utilized as tools,
but their essence and goodness must be kept into consideration.
Martha Nussbaum’s chapter “Beyond Compassion and
Humanity”, although it provides an interesting reading, does not strengthen her
capabilities approach theory. Her argument seems rather exaggerated and not
fully feasible when put into practice.
Source: Nussbaum, chapter 6 “Beyond Compassion and Humanity”
By Georgia Rae Lasio (Third year student, LUC)
No comments:
Post a Comment