The Article entitled "Group Dynamics: Compassion vs. Peer Pressure, Sadism" clearly illustrates the current human sentiment towards nature in general. As a species, the article shows us as sadistic individuals creating entertainment that causes physical and emotional harm to other humans and animals.
Compassion is defined as "the feeling or emotion, when a person is moved by the suffering or distress of another, and by the desire to relieve it" (188). I think is it horrific that the 1964 monkey experiment showed that "87% [of the macaque monkeys] preferred to go hungry rather than harm their fellow monkeys" (201). After reading this section of the article, the reader is encouraged to feel great empathy and respect for the monkeys. However, the next section referring to the compassion of humans through the Yale Millgram Experiment of 1961 and the Stanford Prison experiment of 1971 show nothing but outright hubris for each individual.
In the Yale Miligram Experiment teachers were instructed to shock their learners in increasing increments of fifteen volts for every wrong answer. This experiment found that "the percentage of participants who were prepared to inflict fatal voltages remains remarkably constant, 61-65%, regardless of time or place. Before reading this article, I held the assumption that humans were rather ethnocentric towards other species. I also remembered back to thinking the shocking experiment that occurred in the movie Ghostbusters was humorous. However, since ethnocentrism is defined as a "view of things in which one's own group is the center for everything, and all others are scaled and rated with references to it," then how do we classify the emotional view humans currently utilize (196)? We do not even respect ourselves as a species since we have no problem inflicting pain on others. Thus, the relationship between humans and animals is clearly defined as "enthusiasm for inflicting pain, suffering or humiliation on others," or sadism (201).
Check out this Ghostbusters Scene: its the comical version of the experiment. Yet, it still shows the human lack of compassion for romance and entertainment
Gerrard's article on "Ecocriticism" will give anyone a different outlook on the human relationship between animals and the environment. Prominently is the idea that "environmentalism and animal liberation clearly conflict in both theory and practice" (170). Environmentalism focuses on "inanimate things such as rivers and mountains" and minimal emphasis on "the individual organism" (171). This idea really makes environmentalists seem shallow and missing the greater part of what we assume to be their job, caring for the animals that live in these environments which they seek to protect. He also points out the cultural attitude people have towards animals by using them as symbols. He claims that are use of "therianthropicallly" the "combining human and animal characteristics for purposes of mockery, whereas the lion and the eagle were 'theriomorphic' images of Britain and America" (171).
These readings will certainly give the reader a different outlook on our treatment of fellow humans and those of other species. However, there is one idea of hope that seems to shine through the disgusting prior acts of our species. It is Jeremy Benthem's idea of Utilitarianism and most importantly, his principle of equality that states "everyone is entitled to equal moral consideration, irrespective of family, race, nation or species" (169). If Utilitarianism was a popular and successful form of law for Britain in the 1700's, maybe we are getting to far ahead of ourselves as a species and should look back in history for clues to cohabit the earth....
No comments:
Post a Comment