Re-think necessary
I've been reading "Wild Justice" by Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce that talks about the moral lives of animals and presents a very scientific approach to the examination as to whether or not animals do, in fact, have emotions beyond very basic ones like, mad, sad, happy, etc.
The authors think a re-think is necessary regarding our beliefs about the moral lives of animals based on the fact that, no really, the animals show an astonishing variety of emotions if we can just get rid of the holier-than-thou attitude that prevents us from seeing sophistication in anything not man-made.
But I actually think a re-think is necessary on the spectrum of emotions on the following grounds:
I think we have a maybe unconscious assumption that the emotions that are the easiest to detect are the most basic. So if someone shouts and kicks an object until its broken, obviously that person is mad. Or if a person cries, that person is sad. Etc.
But I'm beginning to think that the spectrum should not be based upon what's easiest to *observe*, because that way lies "we cannot detect subtle emotions that don't have flagrantly manifested outbursts, therefore animals only possess simple, child-like emotions". I think that instead, we should base the emotional spectrum on *intensity*. Just because we cannot see it doesn't mean it's not there. And just because a baby isn't currently raging doesn't mean its emotional state is set to zero; it's more that its emotional state is something less physically obvious, like placid, or calm, or absorbed in something that's caught its attention. And I don't think that any parent would ever dispute that their baby has emotions that go beyond the "simple". Detecting more subtle, less extreme emotions is simply a matter of proximity and familiarity.
But we can never become familiar, nor can we breach a certain proximity to animals without changing their behaviour by our very presence. And so we only see what they show us. And we only see what we're able to see based on our levels of familiarity and proximity. And we miss the more subtle, less extreme emotions, and instead of recognizing a short-coming in ourselves, we transfer that short-coming on our subject. It's not possible that we are handicapped by our circumstances; it is quite obvious that it's simply that animals couldn't find their way out of an emotional equivalent to a paper bag. Right?
If we judge an emotional landscape based on a spectrum that's ruled by intensity, then it becomes almost a presumption that animals have an emotional life that is just as rich as our own; but that we are merely unable to observe it. This of course has wide-ranging, and very inconvenient implications, specifically as relates to our treatment of those animals. But we must not forget that we are ourselves animals, and that just because it's inconvenient, doesn't mean we can avoid facing the facts. (not that I have "proven" anything here; just that we tend to avoid what we don't want to think about).
I will say this, though: it would make sense that animals have a rich emotional life, because in order to facilitate interactions (forget the debate about whether or not "cooperation" or "reciprocity" exists for now) between animals within the same species, they must be able to detect nuances and subtleties within each other. It is almost inconceivable that such an ability did not evolve within each and every species that was able to survive the competitive selection process. And in order to detect nuances (the presence of which is not in question any longer) they must be familiar with emotional nuance and how it presents in themselves and in others. And then can they adopt the familiarity/proximity principle and use it to try to create an advantage (reproductive or otherwise) for themselves.
Why is it so bitter a pill to swallow that we are just a different shape of animal? All I need to do is read the news from any website on any day to confirm this fact. I guess we just avoid what we don't want to think about.
The authors think a re-think is necessary regarding our beliefs about the moral lives of animals based on the fact that, no really, the animals show an astonishing variety of emotions if we can just get rid of the holier-than-thou attitude that prevents us from seeing sophistication in anything not man-made.
But I actually think a re-think is necessary on the spectrum of emotions on the following grounds:
I think we have a maybe unconscious assumption that the emotions that are the easiest to detect are the most basic. So if someone shouts and kicks an object until its broken, obviously that person is mad. Or if a person cries, that person is sad. Etc.
But I'm beginning to think that the spectrum should not be based upon what's easiest to *observe*, because that way lies "we cannot detect subtle emotions that don't have flagrantly manifested outbursts, therefore animals only possess simple, child-like emotions". I think that instead, we should base the emotional spectrum on *intensity*. Just because we cannot see it doesn't mean it's not there. And just because a baby isn't currently raging doesn't mean its emotional state is set to zero; it's more that its emotional state is something less physically obvious, like placid, or calm, or absorbed in something that's caught its attention. And I don't think that any parent would ever dispute that their baby has emotions that go beyond the "simple". Detecting more subtle, less extreme emotions is simply a matter of proximity and familiarity.
But we can never become familiar, nor can we breach a certain proximity to animals without changing their behaviour by our very presence. And so we only see what they show us. And we only see what we're able to see based on our levels of familiarity and proximity. And we miss the more subtle, less extreme emotions, and instead of recognizing a short-coming in ourselves, we transfer that short-coming on our subject. It's not possible that we are handicapped by our circumstances; it is quite obvious that it's simply that animals couldn't find their way out of an emotional equivalent to a paper bag. Right?
If we judge an emotional landscape based on a spectrum that's ruled by intensity, then it becomes almost a presumption that animals have an emotional life that is just as rich as our own; but that we are merely unable to observe it. This of course has wide-ranging, and very inconvenient implications, specifically as relates to our treatment of those animals. But we must not forget that we are ourselves animals, and that just because it's inconvenient, doesn't mean we can avoid facing the facts. (not that I have "proven" anything here; just that we tend to avoid what we don't want to think about).
I will say this, though: it would make sense that animals have a rich emotional life, because in order to facilitate interactions (forget the debate about whether or not "cooperation" or "reciprocity" exists for now) between animals within the same species, they must be able to detect nuances and subtleties within each other. It is almost inconceivable that such an ability did not evolve within each and every species that was able to survive the competitive selection process. And in order to detect nuances (the presence of which is not in question any longer) they must be familiar with emotional nuance and how it presents in themselves and in others. And then can they adopt the familiarity/proximity principle and use it to try to create an advantage (reproductive or otherwise) for themselves.
Why is it so bitter a pill to swallow that we are just a different shape of animal? All I need to do is read the news from any website on any day to confirm this fact. I guess we just avoid what we don't want to think about.