Bernard Williams does not factor the scale of human cruelty in “The Human Prejudice” PDF

Preview

Summary

A physical world is not possible without suffering. Peter Singers’ idea of speciesism leading to animal cruelty is questioned by Bernard Williams in the, “The Human Prejudice”. Williams argues that preventing animal suffering leads to policing nature. Human characteristic such as being “self-aware o...

Description

1. Williams that suffering is inevitable and humans are not capable of stopping animal suffering 2. While suffering it is not humans’ duty to stop suffering we must limit our cruelty. 3. Humans and animals are equal in cosmic importance, according to nature it is not our duty to prevent animal suffering. As a self-aware species we have an expectation to limit cruelty.

nt Bernard Williams does not factor the scale of human cruelty in “The Human Prejudice” A physical world is not possible without suffering. Peter Singers’ idea of speciesism leading to animal cruelty is questioned by Bernard Williams in the, “The Human Prejudice”. Williams argues that preventing animal suffering leads to policing nature. Human characteristic such as being “self-aware of existing overtime” has separated us from other animals, resulting in a pattern of suffering. Human speciesm through acts such as factory farming is cruel and goes beyond suffering in nature. Williams uses the utilitarian idea of an ideal observer to analyze what we should be doing to limit animal suffering. When we limit the suffering of non-human animals the line between humans nature begins to blur. Williams argues that an impartial observer must “take on” the suffering of all creatures. According to the model preventing suffering is the ultimate goal, therefor is it our responsibility to police suffering in nature. I agree with Williams that this idea “misrepresents our relations to nature”. Reflection on the model of such an observer should guide our actions. Williams uses the model to argue that to truly use the ideal observer model we must stop all suffering, an impossible goal. As the model proves and most would agree “we cannot care equally about all the suffering in the world: it is a condition of our existence and our sanity.” It is not the lack of equality between animals and humans that troubles most animal rights activists, it is the cruelty resulting from our specisism. It is morally acceptapted and rule of nature that the dominant species in any ecosystem will cause suffering to others. It creates a healthy circle of life. Actions of modern-day humans are not in the realm of morally acceptable suffering. The word cruelty is much more applicable. It is also acceptable to prioritize our own species. Lets’ say a man is starving to death and the only available food source is a pig that will give the sustenance to survice. I would argue that

most would agree killing said pig is morally acceptable if the entirety of the pig is utilized. Complete equality between all species is not a reasonable goal. A reasonable goal is to treat other species with dignity and respect. It would be challanging to argue that our current practices of factory farming, animal testing, deforestation and the like are not cruel. The United States alone kills approximately 121 million pigs a year, according to PETA. The suffering placed on these intelligent animals is beyond actions in nature. Williams is avoiding the scale of human caused suffering. An impartial observer whose priority is to end suffering would not worry about a prey being eaten by a deserving predator. Priority would go to the 200 million animals killed every day, 90 percent spent their life in a factory (sentientmedia.org,2020). Maintaining a humane and plant-based diet in more developed countries has become attainable. Although it is a noble goal, being a member of a dominant species does not mean we must care for all lives equally. However, as “self-aware beings” we must understand the effects of our speciesism. Williams might object that no human has the responsibility to determine what is a human prejudice and where we can simply thank evolution. While it is morally important to be concerned with the treatment of animals speciesism is not an issue. The separation between man and animal is not comparable to the separation between genders, races, or other prejudices. With animals, the question is how well they should be treated. While it is undeniable that all humans should all be treated with equality. “Special characteristics” give humans an advantage over other animals in terms of adaptablity and quality of life. These difference only separate us from other animals, they do not give divine power. In the cosmic scale of the universe all animals, including human beings, have equal importance. It is not our job to regulate non-human animal suffering. There cannot be a prejudice between animals. We “should” treat animals humanly but that is not a requirement as a human.

Justifying cruelty by claiming “special characteristics” allowes for the suffering sounds familiar to claims made by racisist groups. Humans do not deserve the emesnly better treatment we are getting over other animals. Just as ceratin races/ethnicities do not deserve better treatment. Although it is not a rule of nature to worry about the suffering of other species, as a self-aware species it is a moral expectation. The suffering caused from human speciesism in the form of factory farming and animal testing has reached cruel levels and must change....