[Ethical Analysis] I Think, Therefore I Am

Bob Dylan once said, “The times, they are a-changing.” Indeed they are. Take killing animals, for example. Even the conservative Boy Scouts of America has deleted language from their handbook about killing animals and insects that may carry diseases to humans (see quotes on page 124) and now enjoins scouts to “be kind to the earth.” And that’s the Boy Scouts — mom, baseball, apple pie and the American flag. If that’s what conservative groups are doing, what’s going on in the more progressive or liberal organizations around the country? Killing animals, even insects, is fast becoming unpopular for any reason. Entomologists, when showing insect collections at elementary schools are often bombarded with the question, “Why did you kill them?” So, as the pest control industry, what’s our response to this and other related questions? Is it OK to kill mice, rats, insects and other so-called vermin? And, perhaps more importantly, what is our justification for doing so? The pest control industry has killed pests from its inception without having to justify itself. Now it must. To address this issue, we need to delve into ethics and philosophy, and even religion.

THE ANIMAL RIGHTS ARGUMENT. Many people argue that animals have rights just like humans do. There are even efforts currently underway trying to grant “personhood” to some of the higher apes (S. Michael, “Animal personhood — a threat to research?” The Physiologist, December 2004, Vol. 47, No. 6). The reasoning goes like this: humans are not special; we are only one of thousands of species that evolved naturally here on earth. A rat, a child or a flea are essentially all equal species. Jeffrey Masson (The Pig Who Sang to the Moon, Ballantine Books, New York, 2003) believes that there is little justification for making a comparative scale of suffering where “human” is weighted and animal is given little weight. Also, he says that intelligence does not imply worthiness. “It should not matter,” Masson says, “from an ethical perspective, how intelligent a particular species or even a particular individual is — after all, we don’t shoot a human being who is not doing as well as his contemporaries at school.”

Animal rights advocates also say it is a mistake to conclude that animals have no rights or emotions just because we can’t prove they have self-awareness and a sense of morals. To them, that’s committing the logical flaw called “appeal to ignorance.” The neuroscientist Jaak Panksepp says that both human and animal brains are wired for dreaming, anticipation and the pleasures of eating, anger, fear, love, grief, play and joy (Affective Neuroscience, Oxford University Press, New York, 1998). Animal advocates say we must assume that animals have the same status as human beings, i.e., beings with inherent value. A creature with inherent value is one towards which we must show respect. Therefore, using such a creature merely as a means to our ends shows absolutely no respect on our part.

It follows that creatures with inherent value have rights and their rights trump any attempt to promote the so-called overall good of humanity. Given these considerations, animal rights advocates insist that we must radically alter the ways in which we treat animals — all animals. When we raise animals for food, hunt them and exterminate them from homes and yards just because they are “unwanted” there, etc., we are using them as a means for our ends and not treating them as ends in themselves.

ETHICAL JUSTIFICATION. First, before responding to animal rights claims, let’s try to establish an ethical justification for pest control and then dive off into the complicated subject of animals and ethics. If you’re not really interested in this subject, then at least read this paragraph. In my mind, an appropriate ethical justification for pest control activities is that any pain and suffering experienced by the animals and insects we kill is compensated by the health benefits to humans. Having said that, I think there is an expectation by the public that our methods of pest control will inflict only minimal suffering. No one wants to think we delight in killing things.

For the more complicated philosophical basis for our treatment of animals, a brief historical review is needed. Some people say there’s no problem with using or killing animals for our benefit or protection because animals are “lower” than us, have no consciousness, are here to serve our needs and/or have no intrinsic value. This view originally related to the role of humans in the world as some sort of “divine placement.” In other words, there is a divinely ordered proper place for all inhabitants of the world. For example, the Jewish Old Testament scriptures say, “Thou (God) made him (human) to have dominion over the works of thy hands: thou hast put all things under his feet: all sheep and oxen, yes and the beasts of the field.” (Psalms 8:6-7)

This view goes back thousands of years and was advocated by Greek philosophers such as Aristotle (about 300 B.C.) who said that human beings have the unique capacity for reasoning to guide their conduct. Animals, he said, do not have that and must rely on instinct. To Aristotle, it followed that the function of animals is to serve the needs of humans. Later, many Christians, such as the philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), went along with that worldview, believing that humans are the pinnacle of creation and that all other creatures exist for the sake of humans. Interestingly, other religious people have argued against this view, saying we were placed on the earth to “tend the garden” so to speak and should have great compassion on all living creatures in the so-called web of life. (I once read an article that said Billy Graham would not step on an insect.)

Rene Descartes (1596-1650), the philosopher who said, “I think, therefore I am,” argued that animals are merely automated “machines” that act as if they are conscious, but really are not. He flatly denied animal consciousness. Descartes also believed that complex human behaviors and speech required that humans be composed of an additional “non-material” substance (the spirit or soul) in order to be fully explained. This idea is called “dualism” but I’ll spare you the details.

The work of philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) also addressed differences between humans and animals. He developed a set of philosophical arguments about the nature of morality. These arguments do not rely on a religious worldview, but instead, are based on the relevance of rationality and autonomy. In other words, humans have properties such as complex language and self-awareness, which animals lack. These properties confer on human beings a very strong moral status while denying animals any kind of moral status at all.

Even the famous biologist Charles Darwin (late 1800s) said that the highest animal would have to admit that what sets humans apart from other animals is that these other animals could not “follow out a train of metaphysical reasoning or solve a mathematical problem or reflect on God or admire a grand natural scene” (The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. [reprint], 1981).

Peter Carruthers (late 20th century) said the difference between conscious and non-conscious experiences is that conscious experiences are available only to higher-order thoughts while non-conscious experiences are not. He says that a higher-order thought is one that can take as its object another thought. Since we have no evidence that animals have higher-order thoughts, there is no reason to conclude that they are conscious.

ANIMALS NOT EQUAL TO HUMANS? Having laid that historical background, following are some specific philosophical and religious reasons why animals may not be equal to humans. These points are offered in response to claims made by animal rights advocates. Please note: I’m not advocating any particular position here; I’m just trying to lay out the possibilities so you can review. The reader may choose to accept one or more (or none) of these points of view.

1. Humans, by their very nature, are moral creatures with inherent rights due to their divinely ordered place in the world. They were created by God (either by “guided” evolution or special creation) with these unique characteristics. Therefore, it is simply natural for humans to be above animals on any moral scale. Under this view, we are not permitted to harm animals without good reason (because we are enjoined not to be cruel), but may certainly do so for human health or survival.

2. Apparently only humans are rational, autonomous and self-conscious (or self-aware). In order to achieve self-respect and identity, a creature must be able to conceive of itself and make decisions as to its actions, instead of being led by blind instinct. Let’s define that. There’s what we call awareness, wherein a being is aware of its surroundings, then there’s self-awareness, in which the thing is aware that it’s aware. As far as is known, only humans are self-aware. However, there is some evidence that a few higher animals such as dolphins and apes may be self-conscious, but many, if not most, scientists would agree that lower animals such as rats, mice and insects are not self-aware. Their brains are simply not big enough. Perhaps that’s why federal law setting standards for the care and treatment of animals excludes most rats and mice used in research (Animal Welfare Act, as amended 1990).

3. Only humans can act morally and be part of a moral community. Anthropologists have argued for years about where the human idea of “ought” came from. All humans in all cultures have this sense of “ought” and “ought not,” leading to feelings of right/wrong and resulting guilt. Acting morally requires sacrificing our interests for the sake of others. However, wild animals will pursue their own good even at the expense of others, except maybe for groups which hunt in packs. The Harvard psychologist, Jerome Kagan, said humans have a moral and spiritual nature and are clearly different from non-human animals. He says, “Not even the cleverest ape could be conditioned to be angry upon seeing one animal steal food from another.” (Three Seductive Ideas, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1998)

4. Only humans have the unique characteristic of appreciating art, music and literature. Other animals may be fascinated by a necklace, ring or even a brightly colored bottle cap, but they apparently do not have an artistic appreciation of these things. This “arts” trait probably arises from self-consciousness and our complex human relationships.

HOW SHOULD WE THEN ACT? No matter where you stand on the animal rights issue, I hope that this discussion has been helpful. We all need to face this issue. After all, pest control professionals are in the “killing” business and should be able to rebut and defend verbal attacks for being in such a business. Here are my thoughts on how to proceed. First of all, even if you do not consider animals as self-conscious or as moral agents, you still should consider how your actions affect animals for another, completely different, set of reasons. These are “indirect” reasons to consider how you should act toward animals.

For example, you love your pet. If I harm your pet, I will thereby harm you. Also, I cannot harm animals in a public setting because the action will upset other humans who see it. In addition, torturing an animal is wrong because it is cruel and shows an indifference to suffering. Indifference to suffering is an undesirable human trait and should not be permitted by society because it can show up in relationships to other people. In other words, we have indirect duties to animals because our actions affect our treatment of other human beings.

Secondly, you should make every effort to accommodate a wide diversity of beliefs about the proper place of the world’s inhabitants, be they plants, animals or humans. Pest control customers come from a variety of religious and non-religious backgrounds and have different views about the meaning of life and the human place in it. There’s no need in arguing with someone who wants his/her mice captured and released instead of killed. You should simply either catch and release the mice, if possible, or drop that customer. No big deal.

However, in my mind, pest management personnel should not be ashamed of killing mice, rats and insects for the overall good of humanity. This is certainly a noble cause since the ability to control pests is one of the reasons civilizations are able to exist and prosper. Also, pest management professionals should be willing to justify and defend humane pest control methods to their customers, as well as to local, state and national policymakers.

For me personally, there’s no question whether or not a child is more important than a rat (duh!). The pain and suffering we inflict upon pests is compensated by the health benefits to humans.

The author is a medical entomologist for the Mississippi Dept. of Health, Jackson, Miss.