“Anthropocentrism is the irrational belief that humans are the only species on the planet worthy of consideration, the basis of all abuse of other creatures on earth.” –Sir Brian May, founder of the Queen and Save Me Trust.1
The mental territory we can claim to be “distinctly human” is shrinking at an alarming rate. Bees can distinguish faces, dolphins call each other by name, pigs use tools, zebra finches dream, parrots zoom in and sometimes crayfish anxious. And chimpanzees, like ours, exist in complex cultures with fashion trends. – Martha Gill2
For too long, a self-serving kind of anthropocentrism has dominated how we see and place nonhuman animals (animals) in the natural world. Arguing about human exceptionalism in placing animals below us and apart from us leads some people to think that we are above and separate from other species – often thinking that we are “better” and “more valuable” than them –A myth that does not represent what transdisciplinary science has shown time and time again.3
Actually, nonhumans are not subhumanand to see all species as unique and important in their own way is a better representation of the members of many different communities on earth, none of which is better or more valuable than any other. This is one of the many reasons I recently found Dr. Josephine Donovan book Radical Natural Law: A Critical Perspective on Animals and Nature An important and enlightening read, it successfully eliminates humans, includes other animals, and offers a holistic view of the natural world.
Mark Bekoff: Why did you write it? Radical natural law?
Josephine Donovan: In my previous work, I found that while philosophers debate passionately about how we humans should treat animals, they never consider that animals might have something to say about it. (See especially my book Animals, Mind and Matter: The Inside Story and the article Feminism and the Treatment of Animals: From Care to Dialogue.)
So I suggested that animal ethics, that is, principles about how animals should be treated, should be based in large part on what animals tell us about how they want to be treated and what their needs are. In Radical natural law I have supported this view with a critical theoretical framework which states that attitudes towards people should be based on the specific perspective of the people in question. In particular, I drew on the work of Ernst Bloch, who argued that natural law is the resistance of the oppressed to brutal treatment. While Bloch usually limited his understanding to humans, I have extended it to animals. Radical natural law lies in the expressed resistance of animals (and other natural persons) to cruel and degrading treatment, in their implicit expression of need.
MB: How does your book relate to your background and general interests?
JD: I have written several books and articles in the area of animal ethics. In particular, I (and others) brought feminist care theory into the discussion. Care theory is a dialogic theory, so it leads naturally to the radical natural law concept I outline in the new book.
MB: Who do you hope to reach?
JD: I hope the book will provide a new theoretical framework for animal therapy. To date, the dominant theories are utilitarian and Kantian, which, as I have argued, are inadequate. I hope people take seriously the idea that animals’ opinions about how they want to be treated should be considered and considered by humans.
Lots of new information about animals intelligence and communicative skills (some of which you contributed) emerge, which inevitably make people take animals more seriously and therefore pay more. attention (one hopes) and gives more weight to their reported resistance to harmful treatment. Cows escape from loading ramps, chimpanzees escape from laboratories, fish swim, dogs bark and bite. Animals usually express themselves. But in the past, humans rejected animal thought in favor of the kind of behavior that was beneficial to humans.
MB: What topics do you cover and what are your key messages?
JD: I look at the different philosophical traditions that support the overall thesis of the book, from the Stoic ideas of natural law to the early modern era, when natural law was limited to humans and could only be known through human intelligence (which Thomas Jefferson considered in the Declaration of Independence to be “self-thinking men”). However, several contemporary philosophical schools, including Hungarian Marxists, Oxford women, feminist care theorists, and various eco-theorists of the 20th and 21st centuries, have returned to or reinvented the concept of natural law to include animals and what they think, feel, and need. This newly conceived radical natural law provides a philosophical foundation for animal ethics.
The main thesis of the book is summed up in its first and last sentences; Robin Wall quoting Kimmerer Wrapping SweetgrassI suggest asking the goldenrod, meadowlark, and monarch butterflies how they would feel if their habitat were turned into a parking lot. Or ask a chimpanzee in a cage how it feels to be imprisoned; or ask a pig going to slaughter how it would react to the situation, or a mouse genetically engineered to carry human diseases. We know how to answer these questions. Let’s pay attention to them.
MB: What makes your work different from others dealing with the same general themes?
JD: Most theories of animal therapy to date do not include the animals’ own thoughts about their treatment, so Radical natural law is an attempt to restore one’s point of view in the debate.
MB: As people learn more about this important topic, do you hope they will treat nonhuman animals and their homes with more respect and compassion?
JD: Yes, I think that as people become more appreciative of the complexities of animal intelligence and emotional life, reductive thoughts about animals as “just animals” and therefore not taken seriously morally – will disappear. Recognizing the subjectivity of animals will hopefully lead to a reversal of their current status as soulless objects in law, commerce, and laboratory science. Radical natural law provides a philosophical and theoretical basis for such a transformation.
