Philosophy: Animals, Machines and Humans

IB Philosophy: Core theme – Animals, Machines and Humans Core Theme: Animals, Machines and Humans This note describes the views of Plato, Aristotle and Plato: He never addressed animal rights or the possibility of A.I. (which he could not have foreseen). However it could be argued that ‘logos’ (intellect), may exclude animals from human rights and status. – (implication #1) – “it raises the question of whether other primates could be equal to humans.” – some animals display higher mental facilities in terms of problem solving, social behavior and emotions – however they lack linguistic ability and have no concept of mathematics (which he thought important). – (implication #2) – “as ‘thinking’ machines they may have possessed characteristics Plato is known to have valued (logical thinking, calculation and a lack of irrational emotional responses” – however, Plato’s view of the human as a blend of irrational impulse and restraining reason does not seem to apply to a machine. (When studying Plato and other Greek philosophers, their social context and access of information should be appreciated when considering their philosophical views. For example, Plato could not access the knowledge we have as a result of science and could not have developed the same level of ethical views regarding A.I. and animal rights.) Against: Plato wrote that the soul (psyche) is like a chariot: the charioteer (logos) is on a journey towards truth, pulled by a white horse (reasonable desires, spirits) and a black horse (wild desires and appetites), and struggles to move forward by controlling the desires and producing harmony – the metaphor works from the assumption that the soul directs the behavior of the body. (The assumption of there being a human soul becomes problematic in many philosophic views as its existence constitutes an entirely different debate. Whether an animal or A.I. has a soul is also an argument of its own.) (However, Plato’s views can be used in the sense that they indicate how a creature having a soul can be thought as a human being. It is important to think of how each individual point in a written response links to one another and how referring to well-known philosophers can help this.) Aquinas: His view of human nature and the soul is grounded in key biblical narratives (e.g. genesis). – (argument #1) – “God’s love and care extended to all creatures, but rational beings had special significance.” – (argument #2) – “only the intellectual creature is free, and thus closest to the divine image: animals existed for the benefit of humans (natural law argument) – these ideas can be extended to A.I. however he was a theologian with strict views on the dignity of creation via God. (Aquinas clearly states that a human being, as we recognise ourselves to be, has intrinsic value that is not shared by other creatures.) Against: He would assert that humans’ special moral status (image of God) cannot be undermined, and an attempt to recreate this (strong A.I.) would be an act of arrogance and rebellion. He believed that we were morally free as humans; this is hard to apply to a machine where all response is artificially programmed using pre-determined algorithms. (The theist and atheist view in response to Aquinas must be considered. Would an atheist agree with what Aquinas argues for?) Speciesism (Peter Singer): Animals have the same capacity to experience pain, so their rights should be protected – a non-rational preference for human rights over animals would be comparable to racism – extension of utilitarian ideas. – (assumption #1) – “animals are persons as they are rational and self conscious (have a sense of themselves existing across time) – thus, all animals are equal and they should be given equal considerations, not necessarily rights.” – Singer believed that the interest humans have in eating animals cannot outweigh the animal’s interests of not being exploited.\ (Singer’s argument directly contradicts Aquinas’; rather than saying that human beings are distinct from other creatures, Singer effectively equalises all living beings.) Against: – (criticism #1) Descartes – “a human being is made up on an immaterial soul linked in some way with a material body – the soul allows for consciousness, and animals who do not have a soul are not conscious and cannot feel pain.” – highly questionable as he cannot make sense of the way in which body and soul are linked and how a soul produces consciousness. – (criticism #2) Cora Diamond – “the reason why we do not eat each other is not because we have ‘interests’ to be respected” – this has to do with our sense of human individuality and the significance of the human body: 1. We have names, and we lead a life no animals does: we struggle existentially for meaning while an animal just happens to be. 2. The human body helps in fostering fellowship, this is crucial in structuring and giving sense to the ways in which we treat each other. (The naturalistic fallacy can be raised here. However, it will have to be developed to suit the argument.) – (criticism #3) Immanuel Kant – “only rational creatures can be the proper object of a direct moral concern.” – however he does not advocate doing anything we wish to animals, as those who are cruel to animals will only cultivate their cruel dispositions and become cruel persons. (Be sure to study Kant’s ethical views in depth before using him as a counter-argument. The criticism to Singer is drawn from how our actions reflect ourselves as moral agents.)