
The fate of animals is of greater importance to me than the fear of appearing ridiculous; it is indissolubly connected with the fate of men.
- Emile Zola
Despite Rousseau and Bentham, the idea that animals did or ought to have rights remained ridiculous. When the British feminist Mary Wollstonecraft (1759–1797) published A Vindication of the Rights of Woman in 1792, Thomas Taylor (1758–1835), a Cambridge philosopher, responded with an anonymous tract called Vindication of the Rights of Brutes, intended as a reductio ad absurdum. Taylor took Wollstonecraft's arguments, and those of Thomas Paine's Rights of Man (1790), and showed that they applied equally to animals, leading to the conclusion that animals have "intrinsic and real dignity and worth," a conclusion absurd enough, in his view, to discredit Wollstonecraft's and Paine's positions entirely.
Although Singer rejects rights as a moral ideal independent from his utilitarianism based on interests, he accepts rights as derived from utilitarian principles, particularly the principle of minimising suffering. Singer allows that animal rights are not the same as human rights, writing in Animal Liberation that "there are obviously important differences between human and other animals, and these differences must give rise to some differences in the rights that each have." He began his book by defending Mary Wollstonecraft's 18th-century critic Thomas Taylor, who argued that if Wollstonecraft's reasoning in defense of women's rights were correct, then "brutes" would have rights too. Taylor thought he had produced a reductio ad absurdum of Wollstonecraft's view; Singer regards it as a sound logical implication.
- Emile Zola
Despite Rousseau and Bentham, the idea that animals did or ought to have rights remained ridiculous. When the British feminist Mary Wollstonecraft (1759–1797) published A Vindication of the Rights of Woman in 1792, Thomas Taylor (1758–1835), a Cambridge philosopher, responded with an anonymous tract called Vindication of the Rights of Brutes, intended as a reductio ad absurdum. Taylor took Wollstonecraft's arguments, and those of Thomas Paine's Rights of Man (1790), and showed that they applied equally to animals, leading to the conclusion that animals have "intrinsic and real dignity and worth," a conclusion absurd enough, in his view, to discredit Wollstonecraft's and Paine's positions entirely.
Although Singer rejects rights as a moral ideal independent from his utilitarianism based on interests, he accepts rights as derived from utilitarian principles, particularly the principle of minimising suffering. Singer allows that animal rights are not the same as human rights, writing in Animal Liberation that "there are obviously important differences between human and other animals, and these differences must give rise to some differences in the rights that each have." He began his book by defending Mary Wollstonecraft's 18th-century critic Thomas Taylor, who argued that if Wollstonecraft's reasoning in defense of women's rights were correct, then "brutes" would have rights too. Taylor thought he had produced a reductio ad absurdum of Wollstonecraft's view; Singer regards it as a sound logical implication.
[Link to concept and other pieces in the series.]
Category All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Gender Any
Size 1280 x 935px
File Size 113.4 kB
The use of masks in this section is phenomenal. It's implicit, in a way, that the true intent, motivation and feelings of all the observers are variable, hidden, veiled. It's very impersonal, anonymous and alien, and thereby - I think - more successful. And I couldn't help but notice that nowhere in your thesis did you actually depict a natural human face - only masks, distortions and anthropomorphic animals. Very clever way to depict humans without depicting them, indeed!
(Late reply, sorry.)
To me, human beings are all about masks, constantly hiding what they are/want/think, masks are tools, you can't go for 10 seconds among people without comming across the psychodramatic maneuvering - someone lying, pretending, manipulating, hiding.
Animals sometimes appear to have masks too, due to how they seem alien to us.
To me, human beings are all about masks, constantly hiding what they are/want/think, masks are tools, you can't go for 10 seconds among people without comming across the psychodramatic maneuvering - someone lying, pretending, manipulating, hiding.
Animals sometimes appear to have masks too, due to how they seem alien to us.
Well, if eating meat were the ONLY thing available and I'd starve if I didn't eat, then I'd have to put self-preservation above an affinity for the victim animal. That's what makes animals so valiant and beloved- always willing, or at least able, to accept their pain for our sustenance, or our need for servants, or even our bloodlust. Plain and simple, we've enslaved animals and just when you think karma would catch up to us, our longsuffering servants return to cuddle with us or be cooked into our next meals or hunted for sport.
Well, yes.
Although I'm not sure about the carma part.
Ofc it has nothing to do with single animals, no cow will hate you for eating hamburgers. Yet things like practice of hunting, which nowadays practically turns natural habitats into farms (natural predators hunted out, animals being fed = their numbers increase beyond what that ecosystem is capable of sustaining and diseases spread (that's also one of the arguements by hunters why hunting is important - for solving a problem they created and keep creating)), might and, imho, WILL slowly but surely come back to humans.
Pets too. Introduction of house cats to Australia has caused huge damage to ground-nesting birds. That's ruining things right there...
Although I'm not sure about the carma part.
Ofc it has nothing to do with single animals, no cow will hate you for eating hamburgers. Yet things like practice of hunting, which nowadays practically turns natural habitats into farms (natural predators hunted out, animals being fed = their numbers increase beyond what that ecosystem is capable of sustaining and diseases spread (that's also one of the arguements by hunters why hunting is important - for solving a problem they created and keep creating)), might and, imho, WILL slowly but surely come back to humans.
Pets too. Introduction of house cats to Australia has caused huge damage to ground-nesting birds. That's ruining things right there...
a very unique piece of artwork, i love the style and textures in this <3 I also agree with you about human life and animal life being the same value, none greater or non less, life is life, it should be treated equally throughout the stars....even a virus has a purpose, especially if it was built to destroy....
If you enjoy philosophy so much as your short snippet of arguments for the piece, then I will guarantee that you'll enjoy Joanna Bourke's book; "What it means to be human". It discusses so many aspects you've mentioned here.
Additionally, the piece is very clever and fascinating to contemplate at.
Additionally, the piece is very clever and fascinating to contemplate at.
Supposing for a moment that humans can make a decision concerning other animals, and carry it out, then it is our duty to minimize suffering, much as it is the duty of a doctor to minimize the suffering of a patient unable to care for himself--except that here, we are as much doctors as we are the disease.
Comments