Perhaps the greatest influence on the treatment of animals came about through the scientific work of Charles Darwin (1809-82). Darwin was the first person to see the theory of evolution by natural selection gain wide acceptance both within the scientific community and wider society. Darwin blew apart the almost universally accepted theory that human beings were set apart biologically from the rest of the natural order. Whilst his views were widely disputed and opposed when he first published them, Darwin’s influence now means that human beings cannot easily believe themselves to be entirely separate from all other living organisms on the earth. Darwin put his view thus, ‘Man in his arrogance thinks himself a great work worthy of the interposition of a deity. More humble and I think truer to consider him created from animals.’
It is not surprising, given his lifelong work of understanding the links between human beings and animals, that Darwin was also one of those who worked hard to promote the introduction of the 1876 Cruelty to Animals Act.Monday, August 4, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Not sure that I buy this one. Science is amoral by nature, and if anything Natural Selection support hierarchial order. Animal welfare is predicated more on a theological notion of "moral order" rather than biological order.
Hey Ben,
Natural Selection as I understand it, is survival of the fittest. Survival being the key word. I don't think hierarchial order means doing what you want, because you can.
Wade
Addendum to Ben,
I am not really "suggesting" we blame Darwin, it just seems that he is the only one that has been missed.
Wade
Wade, I think the real origins of animal welfare predated Darwin by a bit, and the first legislative efforts in the UK were well under way when CD was still sailing around the world looking at the beaks of island finches. Darwinism, the notion of "survival of the fittest" was more of a social adaptation of natural selection to justify bad behavior. In the purist sense Darwinism suggests that the most powerful get to make the rules. What I find interesting is that by the mid 19th Century there was already a clear split between animal welfare advocates and those who would lay the foundation for animal liberation. The antivivisectionists would be entirely comfortable today with PETA. For a hundred years animal welfare moved forward in part by intentionally excluding antivivisectionist radicalism. In the last thirty years the libertionists have seized control of the traditional animal welfare agenda by gaining control of organizations like HSUS and SPCA at the local levels and are rewriting history -- telling us that antiviv sentiment was always the real mainstream when in fact it wasn't.
Ben,
I agree with what you say, except the powerful writing the rules. Thats like interpreting the Bible into different religions.
I have been saying for a long time Welfare and Rights is two different philosophy's. The pro radicals did much to lump them together, and cause that misconception. I think if you stood on the side of animals, with no personal agendas, you would be neither a Pro or an Anti.
Wade
Post a Comment