Pets aren't people, not property either
Richard Jensen
professor of biology
This letter is in response to the March 8 column by Charles Rice entitled "Remember: Pets aren't people."
I hesitate to question the logic of such a learned man as professor Charles Rice but he does seem to have opened the way for a reasoned argument in support of Peter Singer's position that "parents of severely disabled babies ... should be allowed to kill a child whose prospects for a minimally decent life are very poor." As I understand Rice's explanation, the difference between spiritual and non-spiritual beings is the inability of the latter to "engage in the spiritual activities of abstraction and reflection."
Anyone who has taken the time to really get to know an animal, such as a chimpanzee, cat or dog, knows that these animals can engage in acts of abstraction (problem-solving) and reflection (contemplating the consequences of an action). I can agree with professor Rice in that I have never seen a bird use a set of plans to build a nest (by the same token, I have never seen a human try to weave a spider's web without a set of plans; I wonder what that implies?).
These are wonderfully simple examples of innate behaviors peculiar to particular species. However, I have seen squirrels solve the difficult problem of trying open a bird feeder, and crows can solve the problem of harvesting fish on the end of a line dangling through an ice hole. I certainly agree that their abilities of abstraction and reflection do not appear to be equal to those of most humans, but then there are humans who seem to be lacking these abilities entirely.
If a human cannot communicate, has no perceptible brain activity and cannot respond to stimuli other than by simple reflex, then this human does not qualify, by professor Rice's definition, as a spiritual being (i.e., cannot engage in abstraction and reflection). Thus, its soul is a material soul, just as are those of "Dogs, other animals and plants."
There is another equally important question here. What insight or special knowledge allows professor Rice to pronounce that the souls of animals are material or that the souls of humans are not material? I am not aware of any tangible data that can be used to support either claim (Has anyone ever captured or isolated and studied a soul?).
On the other hand, I do have enough personal experience with animals to know that they are not all preprogrammed automatons with no sense of self. The next time Sparky (one of the cats who lives in my home) asks to be let out the back door or opens the Venetian blinds to gaze through the window, I will remind him that he cannot think abstractly or reflect on the consequences of his actions and that he has no rights, except those granted by his guardians. Fortunately for him, he has guardians who believe that they are responsible for his well-being and who do not view him simply as a piece of property.
Richard Jensen
professor of biology
Saint Mary's College
March 16, 2001
All Viewpoint Stories for Tuesday, March 20, 2001
