‘Burgers “R” Us: On an Apologetics For Carnivores Jim Fahey Department of Cognitive Science 10/11/2007

A Note on ‘Apologetics’ APOLOGY-a formal justification or defense So, what I plan to discuss is: a certain justification for the unnecessary killing of animals for food by humans

Some Assumptions: In What follows I will assume a number of things each of which is controversial: 1.Moral Principles are REAL; 2.RIGHTS are REAL since they derive from Real Moral Principles; 3.Rights Imply Obligations Principle = def. If s has right R, then all who are capable are morally obligated (ceterus paribus) to refrain from violating that right.

Interest Theory of Rights If s has right R, then s is capable of having an interest I in that to which R pertains. In short:R  I Note: it is NOT the case that I  R, however, if s has an interest I, then s is a candidate for having a corresponding right R.

Note: Minimally, my version of this theory requires that if an entity has a right, it must be capable of being aware of the presence or absence of that to which the right pertains. So, for example, if s has the right to “be free from bodily harm,” s must be capable of being aware of the presence/absence of bodily harm. We have little or no reason to believe that such things as stones or chairs have any awareness at all. Thus, according to ITR (interest theory of rights) neither stones nor chairs are candidates for having rights.

Note (cont.) More formally: If stones have rights, then stones have interests. Stones have no interests Stones have no rights.

Requirements for the Having of Interests? I believe that a strong case can be made for the following: If something s has (is capable of having) an interest, I, then s is (is capable of being) CONSCIOUS, C. That is: I  C

Rights: the Consciousness Requirement R  I I  C ~C ~R

Rights of Plants? If plants have rights, then plants have interests. If plants have interests, then plants are conscious. Plants are not conscious Plants have no rights.

Persons and the Right to Persist If we accept ITR and that all persons have the right to life (right to persist), that is, 1.s is a person  s has a right to life then it follows from ITR that 2.s is a person  s has an interest in life (s is capable of having an interest in life).

Self Consciousness and Personhood What are the requirements for having an INTEREST IN LIFE? In accord with certain traditional accounts of “persons,” a strong case can be made for the view that in order to have an interest in life in the sense at issue, one must be able to think about oneself as an ongoing entity– as a something that has both a past and an anticipated future. If this is the case, then in order for one to have an interest in life it is NOT enough for one to be merely CONSCIOUS – one has to be SELF CONSCIOUS as well.

What is Consciousness? What is consciousness? We think it is fair to say that there is no generally accepted answer. Typically, however, we say that consciousness includes such things as: RAW FEELS:feelings such as pain or love; PERCEPTUAL STATES:for example, my "seeing" of a "blue patch of color" when I look out at the Lake; INTENTIONAL STATES: my having of such things as beliefs about things - for example my belief about the Lake that it is cold.

What is Self Consciousness? What is self consciousness? One philosopher (D. Hume) attempts to shed light on this as follows: Consciousness is analogous to being in the audience and being aware of what happens on stage. Self consciousness is being aware of yourself-being-in-the-audience-and-being-aware- of-what-happens-on-stage. If you are a self conscious entity, you have the ability to reflect back on your history and see yourself as a something that has a past as well as a hoped-for-future.

Self Consciousness and Personhood (cont.) (3) s has an interest in life  s is self conscious. (s is capable of having an interest in life  s is capable of being self conscious.) It would thus follow that if some entity s is NOT self conscious, then s has no right to life and thus is not a person. We thus arrive at:

SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS CRITERION OF PERSONHOOD: (4) s is a person  s is self conscious (s is capable in the relevant sense of being robustly self conscious.)

The Argument thus far: For some entity s, (1) s is a Person  sR Life (2) sR Life  sI Life (3) sI Life  s is Self Conscious (4) s is a Person  sR Life  s is Self Conscious

Self Consciousness and (non-Human) ANIMALS Psychologists attempt to devise experiments that provide empirical evidence that an entity is or is not self-conscious. One such test is the "mirror test“ (Gordon Gallup). Only a few animals pass the "mirror test."

Monkey in the Mirror (NOVA video)

Passing the Mirror Test Should we allow that “passing the mirror test” shows that an animal possesses a variety of self consciousness that makes it a candidate for personhood? If so, should we allow further that all entities who pass the mirror test are persons? We should be careful here …(PERI) Mere Self Recognition may not require Self Consciousness of a sufficiently robust sort to be indicative of personhood.

Self Consciousness and the Right to Life Nevertheless, I am willing to defend the claim that: If an entity s is Self Conscious in a relevant sense, then s has the Right to Life s is Self Conscious  sR Life And thus

Some Non-Humans Have the Right to Life! … since I think there is little doubt that the self- recognition-behavior exhibited by chimps and orangoutangs is indicative of self consciousness in a relevant sense … CHIMPS AND ORANGOUTANGS HAVE A RIGHT TO LIFE.

The Bottom Line: The ‘Burger Animals have some INTERESTS and thus they may have some corresponding rights. Our society holds that they have the RIGHT to be free from CRUELTY. But while they may have this Right, if the foregoing is correct, since they are not self- conscious, they DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIFE. Thus, painless killing does not violate the rights of non-self-conscious-cows and thus your ‘burger can be enjoyed in “good conscience.”

OR CAN IT? NOW, THE STING

The Relevance of a Less Robust Self Consciousness? Remember my claim … If an entity s is Self Conscious in a relevant sense, then s has the Right to Life s is Self Conscious  sR Life What if having self consciousness in the relevant sense requires merely that s has HOPES & DREAMS!

The Relevance of a Less Robust Self Consciousness? As Darwin remarked, “can we feel sure that an old dog with an excellent memory and some power of imagination, as shewn by his dreams, never reflects on his past pleasures in the chase? And this would be a form of self- consciousness.” Darwin, C. (1871) The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, p. 62.

The Final Bottom Line So perhaps we should worry about our indiscriminate using of cows and pigs, lambs and chicken. With apologies to Yeats … But I, being poor, have only my hopes & dreams, I have spread my hopes & dreams under your feet; Tread softly, because you tread on my hopes & dreams.