Consider the following statement:
“Death is a greater tragedy when it happens to a human than when it happens to a wolf. The mistake is to think that is follows from this that human lives are superior. That we lose more when we die is not an indication of our superiority; on the contrary, it is a clue to our damnation.” (203)
In this passage, Rowlands is challenging the notion of superiority of humans to animals based on lose of the future. In order to understand this, we must look at the human conception of time, time’s arrow, and the animal conception of time, eternal return, and how these relate to finding the meaning of one’s life, whether animal or human, and how it relates to our views of death. Rowlands’ argument is a complex argument …show more content…
If animals are uninterested in the future, why is it wrong to use and kill animals for our benefit? Of course, Rowlands is not saying this as someone who has a close relationship with his animals and as a vegetarian. But Rowlands is not required to defend animals and how they interpret time and why that should not be used as a reason to harm them; we need to only look at ourselves and know that it would be wrong to do so. Just because a wolf, cow, or chicken are uninterested in the future and prefer to live in every moment, which does not make them susceptible to being a victim. If humans were to understand that animals live in the moment, and that the animal is able to find pure happiness in every moment, as moral agents should be able to realize that we are required to not interrupt these moments, if not for the animals than to allow us to know that we were able to allow the animal’s happiness to continue. The morality of our actions does not rely on the perceptions of the animals; it depends only on us. To put the responsibility of providing humans with evidence as to why animals should not be used on animals is ridiculous. In arguments for the harmful usage of animals, it is commonly stated that animals are unable to communicate their wishes or that they are in pain, but this only further requires humans to make these decisions for the animals as well as for themselves. If Rowlands is correct and animals view time as a never ending cycle, we would need to ensure that the cycle is not filled with pain and sorrow, but with happiness and
“Death is a greater tragedy when it happens to a human than when it happens to a wolf. The mistake is to think that is follows from this that human lives are superior. That we lose more when we die is not an indication of our superiority; on the contrary, it is a clue to our damnation.” (203)
In this passage, Rowlands is challenging the notion of superiority of humans to animals based on lose of the future. In order to understand this, we must look at the human conception of time, time’s arrow, and the animal conception of time, eternal return, and how these relate to finding the meaning of one’s life, whether animal or human, and how it relates to our views of death. Rowlands’ argument is a complex argument …show more content…
If animals are uninterested in the future, why is it wrong to use and kill animals for our benefit? Of course, Rowlands is not saying this as someone who has a close relationship with his animals and as a vegetarian. But Rowlands is not required to defend animals and how they interpret time and why that should not be used as a reason to harm them; we need to only look at ourselves and know that it would be wrong to do so. Just because a wolf, cow, or chicken are uninterested in the future and prefer to live in every moment, which does not make them susceptible to being a victim. If humans were to understand that animals live in the moment, and that the animal is able to find pure happiness in every moment, as moral agents should be able to realize that we are required to not interrupt these moments, if not for the animals than to allow us to know that we were able to allow the animal’s happiness to continue. The morality of our actions does not rely on the perceptions of the animals; it depends only on us. To put the responsibility of providing humans with evidence as to why animals should not be used on animals is ridiculous. In arguments for the harmful usage of animals, it is commonly stated that animals are unable to communicate their wishes or that they are in pain, but this only further requires humans to make these decisions for the animals as well as for themselves. If Rowlands is correct and animals view time as a never ending cycle, we would need to ensure that the cycle is not filled with pain and sorrow, but with happiness and