Most people who share their home with one or more companion animals take it for granted that their companions have feelings including emotions of happiness and wellbeing. Although the behaviors they observe support their presumption, there are those in the scientific establishment who continue to disparage the belief that other animals have emotions or even consciousness, claiming it is “unscientific,” “sentimental,” and “anthropomorphic” to ascribe emotions to a Hen or a Hamster or a Horse.
Listen to Thinking Like a Chicken Podcast, January 13, 2023. Transcript below.
UPC Sanctuary Photo by Karen Davis
Today I want to speak to you about a claim that may sound bizarre,
but is seriously proposed by some segments of the scientific
community, in particular the Behaviorists. They say there is no
reasonable basis for assuming that other-than-human animals are
conscious, emotional beings. They reject evidence of animal pleasure
and happiness, while at the same time conceding that birds and other
animals can experience negative emotions such as fear – after all,
they have concocted countless experiments for decades designed to
elicit fear in their victims.
I thought about all this over the Christmas holidays as I watched
our chickens in our sanctuary yard ENJOYING themselves outdoors! I
was reminded again watching a short video on Facebook of cows
frolicking in the snow – rubbing their faces in the snow, playing
and having FUN together.
A leading critic of the presumption of consciousness and emotions in
nonhuman animals is Marian Stamp Dawkins, a professor of animal
behavior in the Department of Zoology at the University of Oxford.
Dawkins has experimented for years to find out, in her words, “what
hens want” in factory-farming captivity while dismissing the notion
that members of other species showing behavior similar to ours –
like running eagerly to where food can be found – could be assumed
to have emotions of dietary enthusiasm the same as ourselves. The
presumption of animal enjoyment, she said, made her depressed.
Why? Because Dr. Jonathan Balcombe’s book Pleasurable Kingdom:
Animals and the Nature of Feeling Good, she said, threatens to
create a chaos in which there will no longer be any distinction
“between the anthropomorphism of Bambi and the scientific study of
animal behavior.”
While Dawkins implies that Science and the school of Behaviorism
amount to the same thing, the Behaviorism to which she subscribes is
only one approach toward understanding or trying to understand other
animals, and it is one that is being upended by cognitive
ethologists like Professor Emeritus Marc Bekoff. Not surprisingly,
Dawkins accuses Dr. Bekoff of the Crime of ANTHROPOMORPHISM –
ascribing human feelings and desires to other animals.
Most people will agree that there are dimensions of Reality that are
beyond Science, just as there are scientific prospects that are
beyond Behaviorism. Consider the correlation in human life between
things that we must do to survive and perpetuate ourselves and the
pleasure we derive from doing these things. For example, we have to
drink water and eat in order to live, and drinking water and eating
are primary pleasures in human life. We have to have sex in order to
perpetuate our species, and sex is a primary pleasure in human life.
We have to play – entertain ourselves – in order to relieve tension,
and play is a primary pleasure in human life.
So why would it be more reasonable to assume that other animals,
engaging in these same activities, have not been endowed by Nature
with the same incentives of pleasure and enjoyment to do the things
they need to do in order to survive and thrive?
If we believe that we can never make logical inferences about
emotions in nonhuman animals, the same restriction applies to the
emotions of human beings. Why should we believe Dawkins when she
writes that Jonathan Balcombe’s book about animal pleasure left her
with a “depressing feeling”? Why tell us about her feelings, which
can’t be proved?
In addition, there are studies done in which the pleasure centers in
nonhuman animals’ brains are stimulated in such a way as to
encourage or compel the animal to seek to perpetuate the pleasurable
feeling, as indicated by his or her behavioral response to the
stimulus.
There’s a standard of intellectual inquiry that calls for the
simplest, most reasonable explanation of a given phenomenon. If I
see body language such as drooping in one of our chickens, I
conclude that the chicken is not feeling well and that the feeling
probably reflects an adverse condition affecting her. On the other
hand, if I see a chicken with her tail up, eating with gusto, eyes
bright and alert, I conclude that her condition is good and that she
feels happy. Why should I doubt these conclusions when the
preponderance of evidence supports them?
Quite likely, when a person views nonhuman animals mainly or
entirely, for years, in laboratory settings that elicit little more
than dullness and dread in the animals being manipulated for study,
one loses sight of evolutionary continuity with our fellow creatures
and our common evolutionary heritage. Indeed, the school of
Behaviorism represented by Marian Stamp Dawkins seems to exist in an
institutionalized vacuum without any reference whatsoever to
Darwinian Evolution and the World of Nature.
What does Behaviorism teach us about other animals when you think
about it? Once we assume that other animals can never “prove”
conclusively that they are experiencing beings like ourselves, what
basis do we have for treating them with empathy and respect? Looking
at how badly we treat our fellow creatures of other species almost
universally, I submit there is way too much Behaviorism in the
world. Time to break free.
On that note, I will conclude with an observation by the
18th-century English poet, William Cowper (pronounced Cooper), who
wrote: "The heart is hard in nature . . . that is not pleased / With
sight of animals enjoying life, / Nor feels their happiness augment
his own."
I hope you’ve enjoyed today’s podcast, and that you will share it with others. Please join me for the next podcast episode of Thinking Like a Chicken – News & Views. And have a wonderful day.