Moral Inquiries on the Situation of Man and of Brutes

Last updated

Moral Inquiries on the Situation of Man and of Brutes
Moral Inquiries on the Situation of Man and of Brutes.png
Title page of 1992 reissued edition
Author Lewis Gompertz
Subject Animal rights, human rights, veganism
PublisherWestley & Parrish
Publication date
1824
Publication placeUnited Kingdom
Pagesxi + 175
OCLC 8671020

Moral Inquiries on the Situation of Man and of Brutes is an 1824 book by Lewis Gompertz, an early animal rights advocate and vegan. The book argues that animals, like humans, are sentient beings capable of experiencing pain and pleasure, and thus deserve moral consideration. He critiques the exploitation of animals for labour, food, and clothing, condemning practices such as slaughter, hunting, and scientific experimentation. He also addresses the suffering of wild animals, suggesting that even in nature, animals face hardships such as hunger and predation.

Contents

Gompertz promotes a vegan lifestyle, rejecting not only meat but also animal products like milk, eggs, leather, and wool, and questions the justification for using animals in any way that causes harm. His work critiques existing laws like Martin's Act and the Vagrancy Act, calling for stronger legal protections for animals and laying the groundwork for the modern animal rights movement.

Summary

Gompertz begins by reflecting on societal progress and the hope that ethical improvements can extend to animals. He critiques the mistreatment of labour animals like horses, contrasts methods of slaughter, and argues that cruelty arises from improper education. He emphasises the similarities between humans and animals, suggesting that differences in their experiences are due to physical variations rather than moral distinctions. Philosophically, he explores the possibility of a shared future state for both humans and animals.

He then contrasts the lives of humans and animals in nature versus civilisation, arguing that human dominance stems from habit and societal norms, not inherent superiority. Gompertz questions whether increasing happiness would lead to overpopulation of animals and discusses the societal structures that perpetuate exploitation, particularly of animals, women, and the lower classes. He also addresses the suffering of wild animals, noting their constant exposure to hunger, fear, and predation, and controversially suggests that the extinction of carnivorous species might reduce overall suffering in the wild.

Philosophical reflections follow, where Gompertz introduces moral axioms and theorems, including those on personal identity, punishment, and future existence for animals. He argues that reason supports the idea of animals having similar moral rights to humans, challenging conventional ideas of human superiority.

Next, Gompertz presents a dialogue debating the morality of slaughtering animals for food, critiquing widely accepted practices and raising concerns about humane treatment. He argues that consuming milk, eggs, and other animal products is exploitative, advocating for a vegan lifestyle. He also extends his critique to the use of animal products like leather, silk, and wool, questioning the morality of benefiting from substances obtained through harm. He also discusses the ethical use of vegetables, suggesting that plant-based diets align better with moral principles.

Gompertz questions the morality of using horses for labour, arguing that such practices are based on human selfishness rather than necessity. He compares these actions to broader societal exploitation, insisting that reason and conscience should guide treatment of animals.

He critiques Martin's Act, which sought to prevent cruelty to cattle, suggesting more comprehensive legal protections for animals. He then discusses the Vagrancy Act 1824 and treadmills, comparing the harsh treatment of humans under these laws to the cruelty inflicted on animals.

Finally, Gompertz proposes a bill to strengthen animal protection laws, emphasising the moral imperative of preventing cruelty to animals. His work lays a foundation for modern arguments in favour of animal rights and ethical veganism, advocating for the humane treatment of all living beings.

Reception

One contemporary reviewer called the structuring of the book "puzzling", yet felt that Gompertz laid out "excellent principles, as applied to all points of a public nature" and that the "tendency of most of the author's proposals and observations is humane and laudable"; they concluded that despite certain faults in the book's judgements, that it deserved the "attention of magistrates and men in power". [1]

Legacy

In 1839, the astronomer and naturalist T. Forster published a treatise addressed to Gompertz, titled Philozoia, or Moral Reflections on the actual condition of the Animal Kingdom, and the means of improving the same. [2]

Henry S. Salt included Gompertz's book in his bibliography of animal rights, within his 1892 work Animals' Rights: Considered in Relation to Social Progress . [2]

Gary L. Francione and Anne E. Charlton describe the book as "one of the most progressive and radical books on animal ethics ever written, yet is virtually unknown". [3] Peter Singer, in the foreword to the 1992 edition of the book, details his surprise at having discovered Gompertz's work and recognising Gompertz's arguments as being very similar to his own, which have been taken up by the animal liberation movement. [4]

Stephen Bostock draws attention to how Gompertz's investigation of ethics "attempts to argue rigorously from firm foundations with an elaborate apparatus of definitions, axioms and theorems". He also praises the fairness Gompertz gives to his opponents and his honesty about his doubts. Bostock also asserts that Gompertz's answers to a number of contemporary ethical questions are "well worth the attention of anyone tackling these questions today." [5]

Publication history

The book was printed by Richard Taylor and published by Westley & Parrish, who sold it from their location opposite St. Clement Danes on the Strand, London. [6]

In 1992, Centaur Press published a new edition of the book, which was edited by Peter Singer. [4] This was followed by a 1997 edition published by Edwin Mellen Press and edited by Charles R. Magel. [7]

Related Research Articles

Speciesism is a term used in philosophy regarding the treatment of individuals of different species. The term has several different definitions. Some specifically define speciesism as discrimination or unjustified treatment based on an individual's species membership, while others define it as differential treatment without regard to whether the treatment is justified or not. Richard D. Ryder, who coined the term, defined it as "a prejudice or attitude of bias in favour of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species". Speciesism results in the belief that humans have the right to use non-human animals in exploitative ways which is pervasive in the modern society. Studies from 2015 and 2019 suggest that people who support animal exploitation also tend to have intersectional bias that encapsulates and endorses racist, sexist, and other prejudicial views, which furthers the beliefs in human supremacy and group dominance to justify systems of inequality and oppression.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Veganism</span> Practice of abstaining from the use of animals

Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products—particularly in diet—and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals. A person who practices veganism is known as a vegan.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Richard D. Ryder</span> English animal rights advocate (born 1940)

Richard Hood Jack Dudley Ryder is an English writer, psychologist, and animal rights advocate. Ryder became known in the 1970s as a member of the Oxford Group, a group of intellectuals loosely centred on the University of Oxford who began to speak out against animal use, in particular factory farming and animal research. He was working at the time as a clinical psychologist at the Warneford Hospital in Oxford, and had himself been involved in animal research in the United Kingdom and United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gary L. Francione</span> American legal scholar (born 1954)

Gary Lawrence Francione is an American academic in the fields of law and philosophy. He is Board of Governors Professor of Law and Katzenbach Scholar of Law and Philosophy at Rutgers University in New Jersey. He is also a visiting professor of philosophy at the University of Lincoln (UK) and honorary professor of philosophy at the University of East Anglia (UK). He is the author of numerous books and articles on animal ethics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Animal rights movement</span> Social movement advocating animal consideration

The animal rightsmovement, sometimes called the animal liberation, animal personhood, or animal advocacy movement, is a social movement that advocates an end to the rigid moral and legal distinction drawn between human and non-human animals, an end to the status of animals as property, and an end to their use in the research, food, clothing, and entertainment industries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Animal rights</span> Rights belonging to animals

Animal rights is the philosophy according to which many or all sentient animals have moral worth independent of their utility to humans, and that their most basic interests—such as avoiding suffering—should be afforded the same consideration as similar interests of human beings. Broadly speaking, and particularly in popular discourse, the term "animal rights" is often used synonymously with "animal protection" or "animal liberation". More narrowly, "animal rights" refers to the idea that many animals have fundamental rights to be treated with respect as individuals—rights to life, liberty, and freedom from torture that may not be overridden by considerations of aggregate welfare.

Animal ethics is a branch of ethics which examines human-animal relationships, the moral consideration of animals and how nonhuman animals ought to be treated. The subject matter includes animal rights, animal welfare, animal law, speciesism, animal cognition, wildlife conservation, wild animal suffering, the moral status of nonhuman animals, the concept of nonhuman personhood, human exceptionalism, the history of animal use, and theories of justice. Several different theoretical approaches have been proposed to examine this field, in accordance with the different theories currently defended in moral and political philosophy. There is no theory which is completely accepted due to the differing understandings of what is meant by the term ethics; however, there are theories that are more widely accepted by society such as animal rights and utilitarianism.

Abolitionism or abolitionist veganism is the animal rights based opposition to all animal use by humans. Abolitionism intends to eliminate all forms of animal use by maintaining that all sentient beings, humans or nonhumans, share a basic right not to be treated as properties or objects. Abolitionists emphasize that the production of animal products requires treating animals as property or resources, and that animal products are not necessary for human health in modern societies. Abolitionists believe that everyone who can live vegan is therefore morally obligated to be vegan.

<i>The Case for Animal Rights</i> 1983 book by Tom Regan

The Case for Animal Rights is a 1983 book by the American philosopher Tom Regan, in which the author argues that at least some kinds of non-human animals have moral rights because they are the "subjects-of-a-life", and that these rights adhere to them whether or not they are recognized. The work is considered an important text within animal rights theory.

The concept of moral rights for animals is believed to date as far back as Ancient India, particularly early Jainist and Hindu history. What follows is mainly the history of animal rights in the Western world. There is a rich history of animal protection in the ancient texts, lives, and stories of Eastern, African, and Indigenous peoples.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lewis Gompertz</span> English activist, philosopher, writer and inventor (c. 1784–1861)

Lewis Gompertz was an English activist, philosopher, writer and inventor. He dedicated his life to promoting animal rights and welfare, and veganism.

<i>Animals, Men and Morals</i> Collection of animal rights essays

Animals, Men and Morals: An Inquiry into the Maltreatment of Non-humans (1971) is a collection of essays on animal rights, edited by Oxford philosophers Stanley and Roslind Godlovitch, both from Canada, and John Harris from the UK. The editors were members of the Oxford Group, a group of postgraduate philosophy students and others based at the University of Oxford from 1968, who began raising the idea of animal rights in seminars and campaigning locally against factory farming and otter hunting.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Norm Phelps</span> American animal rights activist (1939–2014)

Norm Phelps was an American animal rights activist, vegetarian and writer. He was a founding member of the Society of Ethical and Religious Vegetarians (SERV), and a former outreach director of the Fund for Animals. He authored four books on animal rights: The Dominion of Love: Animal Rights According to the Bible (2002), The Great Compassion: Buddhism and Animal Rights (2004), The Longest Struggle: Animal Advocacy from Pythagoras to PETA (2007), and Changing the Game: Animal Liberation in the Twenty-first Century (2015).

<i>Animal (De)liberation</i> 2016 book written by Jan Deckers

Animal (De)liberation: Should the Consumption of Animal Products Be Banned? is a 2016 book, written by Jan Deckers and published by Ubiquity Press. The book engages with the work of many scholars who have written on the subject, including Carol Adams, Alasdair Cochrane, Gary Francione, Melanie Joy, Martha Nussbaum, and Peter Singer, as well as with the views of non-specialists, including slaughterhouse workers involved with the film Slaughterhouse: The Task of Blood, released by Century Films in 2005.

<i>The Universal Kinship</i> 1906 book by J. Howard Moore

The Universal Kinship is a 1906 book by American zoologist and philosopher J. Howard Moore. In the book, Moore advocates for the doctrine of Universal Kinship, a secular sentiocentric philosophy, which mandates the ethical consideration and treatment of all sentient beings based on Darwinian principles of shared evolutionary kinship, and a universal application of the Golden Rule, a challenge to existing anthropocentric hierarchies and ethics. The book built on arguments Moore first made in Better-World Philosophy, published in 1899, and was followed by The New Ethics in 1907. The Universal Kinship was endorsed by a number of contemporary figures including Henry S. Salt, Mark Twain and Jack London, Eugene V. Debs and Mona Caird.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Charles Magel</span> American philosopher and animal rights activist

Charles Russell Magel was an American philosopher, animal rights activist and bibliographer. He was professor emeritus of Philosophy and Ethics at Moorhead State University.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Henry Crowe (vicar)</span> English vicar and animal rights writer

Henry Crowe was an English parish priest and early animal rights writer.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Predation problem</span> Consideration of predation as a moral problem

The predation problem or predation argument refers to the consideration of the harms experienced by animals due to predation as a moral problem, that humans may or may not have an obligation to work towards preventing. Discourse on this topic has, by and large, been held within the disciplines of animal and environmental ethics. The issue has particularly been discussed in relation to animal rights and wild animal suffering. Some critics have considered an obligation to prevent predation as untenable or absurd and have used the position as a reductio ad absurdum to reject the concept of animal rights altogether. Others have criticized any obligation implied by the animal rights position as environmentally harmful.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Insects in ethics</span> Ethical positions concerning insects

Insects and human ethical obligations towards them have been discussed by a number of writers and figures throughout history, many of whom, arguing from a variety of different perspectives, have contended that there exists a moral obligation towards not harming or killing insects. According to generally accepted definitions in animal welfare and agricultural ethics, however, it is argued that individual insects do not have a "right to life".

References

  1. "Monthly Catalogue, Miscellaneous". The Monthly Review, Or, Literary Journal. R. Griffiths. 1825. p. 109.
  2. 1 2 Salt, Henry Stephens (1894). Animals' Rights Considered in Relation to Social Progress. New York, London: Macmillan & Co. pp. 120–122.
  3. Francione, Gary L.; Charlton, Anne E. (2017). "Animal Rights". In Karlof, Linda (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Animal Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 30. ISBN   978-0-19-992715-9.
  4. 1 2 Gompertz, Lewis (1992). Singer, Peter (ed.). Moral Inquiries on the Situation of Man and of Brutes. Fontwell: Centaur Press. ISBN   978-0-900001-37-6.
  5. Bostock, Stephen (May 1994). "Book Reviews". Journal of Applied Philosophy. 11 (1): 117–127. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5930.1994.tb00097.x. ISSN   0264-3758.
  6. "Moral Inquiries on the Situation of Man and of Brutes". WorldCat . Retrieved 2024-09-18.
  7. Gompertz, Lewis (1997). Magel, Charles R. (ed.). Moral Inquiries on the Situation of Man and of Brutes. Lewiston, New York: Edwin Mellen Press. ISBN   978-0-7734-8722-2.

Further reading