Title: Animal Beauty, Ethics, and Environmental Preservation
1Animal Beauty, Ethics, and Environmental
Preservation
- Ned Hettinger
- College of Charleston
2Animal beauty is a paradigm of aesthetic value
3- What could be more graceful than a gazelle?
Consider the beauty of birds
The charm of the male feeding his female
companion
The bright flash of a cardinal against the deep
green leaves
The haunting call of the loon
4Animal beauty is important for environmental
preservation
- Aesthetic preservationism holds that natural
beauty is a major justification for environmental
protection - If natural beauty amounts to anything, it
includes the beauty of animals, wild and free, on
the move - If our world lacked its splendid animal beauty,
the justification for protecting the environment
would be significantly weaker - This talk is a defense of the significance of
animal beauty for environmental preservation
5Two objections to animal aesthetic preservation
- Focus on animal beauty is superficial and
morally objectionable - As it is with people, aesthetic merit is a
trivial and inappropriate basis on which to value
or protect animals - Predation is ugly
- Widespread suffering, death, and predation of
animals is aesthetically negative and compromises
animal beautys role in aesthetic protectionism - Both are significant problems if one takes the
moral status of animals seriously.
6Is beauty an objectionable basis for
treatment/valuing of humans animals?
7Physically attractive humans are treated better
- More successful in virtually every area of human
life - Jobs, friends, spouses, being elected . . .
8Uncontroversial that some of this preferential
treatment is problematic
- Moral education is needed to correct for such
biases (Robert Fudge, JAAC, 2001) - A focus on human physical attractiveness is
superficial
- Things we do to maintain our own beauty are
associated with disreputable traits like vanity
(Rob Loftis 2003, PCW)
- When we shower many rewards on peoplemodels,
movie starswho are beautiful or who make
themselves beautiful we should feel a little
ashamed of it, thinking it a little silly and a
waste of resources
9Not easy to explain why aesthetic discrimination
is problematic
- Given that beauty is paradigmatically valuable,
why is human beauty not also uncontroversially
valuable? - And if human beauty is valuable, should it not
count for something in our thinking and behavior? - People often choose a spouse or friends based in
part on their beauty and this does not seem
morally objectionable or superficial
10Does Aesthetic Discrimination Violate Moral
Equality?
- One objection to using aesthetic merit to value
and differentially treat people (and animals) is
that it violates the ideal of moral equality
- E.g., Beauty queens should not get better medial
treatment or fairer trials
11Does the moral equality of animals prevent
similar aesthetic discrimination?
- Endangered species discrimination?
- The policy of preserving attractive endangered
species before less attractive ones seems to run
afoul of the moral equality of animals
12- If a bird rescue operation chooses to
rehabilitate hawks, eagles, and owls, but not
vultures, and does so on aesthetic grounds, does
it violate the requirement of equal consideration
for all animals? - Does choosing a pet at the pound based on
aesthetics violate equal consideration of
animals?
13Moral equality not well understood
- The meaning and significance of moral equality in
humans is problematic - Many argue for partiality as a moral ideal
- If and when moral equality rules out meritocratic
treatment (including aesthetic discrimination) is
also up for grabs - The meaning and significance of moral equality
for animals is even less well understood
14Leave implications of moral equality for
aesthetic discrimination unresolved
- Moral considerations do not always outweigh
aesthetic ones - Boring life of Mr. Goody-two-shoes is not
preferable to the life of a person whose
life--though not perfectly moral--is highly
aesthetically stimulating - In the conflict between salmon and sea lions,
even though salmon are less sentient and thus
less morally considerable, salmon may get
preference because of their spectacular life
cycle (superior aesthetic merit)
15Aesthetic Merit and Autonomy
- Another reason aesthetic discrimination is
problematic is that much beauty is beyond the
individuals control and thus - (1) It is unfair to base our treatment of others
on such a feature, for we should base our
treatment of others on characteristics for which
they are responsible - (2) Evaluating others on basis of uncontrollable
features reduces their control over their lives
(reduces autonomy)
16Beauty not always uncontrollable
- Note that these arguments dont apply for the
many dimensions of beauty that are controllable - When an appearance that repulses others is chosen
(e.g., dirty, smelly, gluttonous, etc) - Differential treatment on this basis is neither
unfair nor autonomy reducing
17These considerations dont apply well to animals
- Is aesthetic discrimination toward animals unfair
to them because we are failing to treat them on
the basis of features for which they are
responsible?
- No Because animals are not (fully) morally
responsible beings, no possibility of treating
them only on the basis of features for which they
are responsible
18Does aesthetic discrimination reduce animal
autonomy?
- Animals choices and ability to control their
lives are sufficiently limited so that aesthetic
discrimination does not seriously impair autonomy
in animals - Would we increase the autonomy of ugly pets in
pounds if we choose them on the basis of their
behavior rather than their looks? - I dont think so.
19Does aesthetic discrimination focus on a trivial
value?
- Beauty is only skin deep
- It ignores more important behavioral and
character traits
- Thus differentially valuing and treating people
based on aesthetic merit is a shallow and
superficial approach to their value - So too with animals
20Physical beauty is not a trivial value
- An overly narrow focus on human physical beauty
is clearly problematic
- But so is ignoring the appearance of human bodies
- Humans, like animals, have bodies and what those
bodies are like matters - Must guard against the inappropriate downgrading
of the importance of the physical in human life
21Belief in the triviality of beauty based on an
overly narrow conception of aesthetic merit
- Notion that beauty is only skin deep is like the
formalist idea that beauty consists solely in
forms, lines and colors and that the sensuous
surface of things exhausts their aesthetic content
22 Beauty involves much more than physical
appearance
- Not all beauty is the easy beauty of the beauty
queen, a panda bear or a scenic overlook - There are wonderful people in whom we delight and
whose behavior and compelling personalities move
us greatly, though they many not be particularly
pretty to look at - The beauty queen, in contrast, may be boring,
humorless and no fun at all.
- In country, as in people, a plain exterior often
conceals hidden riches (Aldo Leopold, 1949)
23Deeper beauty in humans and animals depends on
- Behavior and personality
- Cant properly appreciate a salmon without
knowing its life cycle - History, context, and what they represent
- A grizzly bear symbolizes wild nature beyond
human control - A cow represents human domination of nature
24Beauty counts more in animals than in people
- Animal beauty in general (and their physical
beauty in particular) should count more in terms
of how we value and treat animals than human
beauty should count with people - Animals lack the depth of psychological inner
beauty present in the character of people - Aesthetic dimensions of human personalitiesbeing
compelling, boring, humorless, or fascinatingare
only present in radically diminished forms in
animal personalities - Thus a sole focus on animals physical appearance
misses less of their beauty than does such a
focus in people - In human value, beauty has many more competitors
than it does in animal value - For example, moral virtue is central to the
assessment of human value, but is barely present
in animals, if at all
25A sole focus on animal bodies is not demeaning,
as it is with people
- National park visitors who focus on the physical
appearance of animals are not like college men
who stare at womens bodies - Wildlife calendars are not like
Playboy magazines - While a single-minded concern with the look of
animals ignores aesthetic features of their
ecology and behavior, it is not demeaning to the
animals but is a praiseworthy celebration of
their value
26Conclusion about aesthetic discrimination for
humans and animals
- Aesthetic merit is a substantial value, not a
mere tie breaker, and this is especially true
with animals - Aesthetic discrimination is permissible with
animals, even though it is often not with humans - Beautiful animals should be more highly valued
and get more protection than less beautiful ones - Aesthetic merit plays a legitimate role in
assessing the value and treatment of animals that
it doesnt with humans
27Conclusions about the use of animals aesthetic
merit for preservationism
- The notion that beauty is only skin deep relies
on an overly narrow formalist idea that the
sensuous surface of things exhausts their
aesthetic content - It ignores aesthetic merit found in behavior,
personality, history, context, and representation - Aesthetic merit is a substantial value, not a
mere tie breaker - Moral considerations do not rule out differential
treatment based on aesthetics and this is
especially true with animals - Because animals are not morally responsible
beings and have relatively limited autonomy, the
arguments against aesthetic discrimination with
humans do not apply well to animals - Further, a sole focus on the physical appearance
of animals is not demeaning as is a sole focus on
the physical appearance of humans - Because animals lack the depth of inner
psychological beauty present in humans and lack
some important competitors to beauty in the
assessment of individual value (viz., moral
virtue) - Aesthetic merit plays a larger legitimate role in
assessing the value and treatment of animals that
it does with humans - Thus using animals beauty to defend
environmental preservation is not morally
objectionable, nor does it rely on a trivial
value
282nd Challenge to Aesthetic Preservationism
- Animal ugliness, particularly the suffering and
death in predation, undermines the use of animal
beauty for aesthetic protectionism
29Are there ugly animals?
- One account of animal beauty locates it in their
displaying fitness for function (Glenn Parsons,
2007) and possessing parts with natural
functions they are well suited to perform
(Malcolm Budd, 2002) - This explains the ugliness of
- Human growth hormone enhanced Beltsville pigs who
had deformed skulls, swollen legs, and crossed
eyes
- Naturally deformed animals
30Many ugly animals?
- Consider the list suggested--though not
endorsed--by Yuriko Saito - Some things in nature are so repulsive,
annoying, or unattractive that we cannot bring
ourselves to appreciate the positive aesthetic
value of their story telling. Fleas, flies
cockroaches and mosquitoes, no matter how
interesting their anatomical structures and
ecological roles may be, are simply pesky. . .
Bats, snakes, slugs, worms, centipedes and
spiders simply give us the creeps and cause us to
shudder. . . Our negative reaction to these
things outweighs their positive aesthetic value
of embodying their interesting life story (1998).
31Do all animals have significant dimensions of
ugliness?
- The critic will complain against admirers of
wildlife that they overlook as much as they see.
The bison are shaggy, shedding, and dirty. That
hawk has lost several flight feathers that
marmot is diseased and scarred. The elk look
like the tag end of a rough winter. A half dozen
juvenile eagles starve for every one that reaches
maturity. Every wild life is marred by the rips
and tears of time and eventually destroyed by
them (Holmes Rolston, III 1987).
32Animal ugliness as rampant in nature
- Once as a college youth I killed an opossum that
seemed sluggish and then did an autopsy. He was
infested with a hundred worms! Grisly and
pitiful, he seemed a sign of the whole
wilderness, . . . too alien to value (Rolston,
1986)
- Wildness is a gigantic food pyramid, and this
sets value in a grim death bound jungle. All is
a slaughter-house, with life a miasma rising over
the stench. (Rolston, 1986)
- These dimensions of animals lives present a real
worry for the view that the aesthetics of animals
is positive on balance and thus they threaten the
contribution animal beauty can make to aesthetic
preservationism
33I focus on the possibly negative aesthetics of
predation
- It is arguable that the suffering, killing, and
death involved in predation are something we
should not appreciate and further that the
phenomenon is aesthetically negative
- If so, we have a rationale for condemning the
wide-spread practice of aesthetically
appreciating predation and an argument against
the environmental goal of predator restoration
(viz., we should not add ugliness to the world)
- Further, given the centrality of predation in
animal lives, if predation is aesthetically
negative, this seriously hinders using animal
beauty for aesthetic preservationism
34Environmental aestheticians on nature-caused
suffering
- Yuriko Saito denies that everything in nature is
positively appreciable (i.e., positive
aesthetics) - Because it conflicts with a moral obligation not
to appreciate events that cause great human
suffering
- The same moral considerations that question the
appropriateness of our aesthetic appreciation of
the atomic bomb mushroom cloud, I believe, are
also applicable to the possible aesthetic
experience of natural disasters which cause
people to suffer . . . our human-oriented moral
sentiments do dictate that we not derive pleasure
(including aesthetic pleasure) from other humans
misery, even if it is caused by nature taking its
course. . . (1998)
35Saito side steps animal suffering
- While Saito wonders if there is
- Any difference between the suffering and death
of an elk and the suffering and death of people
who are victims of some natural disaster (1998) - She leaves animals out of her conclusion about
the moral inappropriateness of aesthetically
appreciating natural disasters that cause
suffering - Because animals are not insulated from forces of
nature as are humans, the problem of animal
suffering and death in nature is a more
formidable challenge to positive aesthetics than
is nature-caused human suffering
36Allen Carlson on nature-caused animal suffering
- Carlson (2007) dismisses Saitos critique of
positive aesthetics due to nature-caused human
suffering by noting that positive aesthetics
applies only to pristine nature (in which humans
are not involved) - He also dismisses concerns about the aesthetic
implications of animal suffering in nature - (1) By arguing that nature is not morally
assessable - This ignores that it is non-morally assessable
- Predation might be evil or ugly, even though it
cant be wrong - Also ignores moral questions about possible
obligations to alleviate such suffering - (2) And by suggesting that even if it were true
that one ought not to aesthetically appreciate
animal suffering in nature, this is a moral ought
and that leaves the aesthetic value of these
events untouched - This ignores possible interaction between
non-aesthetic and aesthetic values
37Three relationships between aesthetic and other
values
- Aesthetic apartheid
- Autonomism
- Integrationism/interactionism
38(1) Aesthetic Apartheid
- Non-aesthetic (e.g., moral) evaluation is not
appropriately applied to aesthetic objects or
responses - There is no such thing as a moral or immoral
book. Books are well or badly written. That is
all. (Oscar Wilde, 1891) - Apartheid in the aesthetics of predation
- The negative evaluation of the preys pain is not
relevant to predation as an aesthetic object, nor
does it legitimize moral assessment of the
aesthetic appreciation of predation - Aesthetic apartheid is mistaken
- Aesthetic objects and activities are not immune
from non-aesthetic evaluation - Any human act can be morally evaluated, including
acts of aesthetic appreciation - E.g., display admiration of photography of the
bombing of Nagasaki might grievously offendmoral
questioning not out of place
39(2) Autonomism
- Non-aesthetic (e.g., moral) evaluation of
aesthetic objects and responses are appropriate,
but irrelevant to the aesthetic merits of the
object - A moral defect is not an aesthetic defect
- Immoral but great art
- Although Leni Riefenstahls powerful
cinematography glorifying Hitler is morally
depraved and we (morally) ought not appreciate
it, this does not affect its superior aesthetic
merit
40Autonomism applied to nature Evil but
aesthetically valuable nature
- A positive aesthetic response to Hurricane
Katrina and to predation are morally wrong
because they fail to take the disvalue of the
suffering and death of humans and animals
seriously - But these moral mistakes, need not be aesthetic
ones - Katrina and predation might still have great
aesthetic value
41(3) Interactionism/integrationism
- Refuses to compartmentalize values
- Aesthetic and non-aesthetic values (including
moral values) can influence each other - A moral defect can be an aesthetic defect
- Examples
- An author must get the reader to feel sympathy
for a character if the story is to succeed But,
contrary to the authors view, the character is
terribly evil, and this prevents a sympathetic
response - Here a moral flaw in the work cause it to fail
aesthetically - Racist jokes are not funny (and this is because
they are morally wrong) - We may declare pointedly that it is not
funnyprecisely because its message is offensive.
To laugh at it, we may feel, would amount to
endorsing its message, so we refuse to laugh.
Even judging it to be funny may feel like
expressing agreement (Kendall Walton, 2002).
42Pollution sunsets not beautiful
- Integrationist approach Proper sensitivity to
harms of pollution diminish or negate the
sunsets aesthetic value
- Aesthetic appreciation should go beyond sensuous
surface and involve - Conception What is being experience are harmful
particles that damage lungs, send people to the
hospital and acidify lakes - Imagination Picture dead fish, hear the
wheezing of vulnerable people trying to breathe - Emotion Feel angry at industry executives who
profit by externalizing their costs onto others - The aesthetic delight and peaceful feelings
sunsets normally deliver are absent
43Integrationism and Predation
- Because I believe that non-aesthetic and
aesthetic values can interact (integrationism) - I worry not only about it being morally wrong to
aesthetically appreciate predation - But also that it might be aesthetically
inappropriate (an aesthetic mistake)
- The suffering and death involved in predation may
give it a negative aesthetic value - This would be trouble for a positive assessment
of the beauty of the lives of the animals
involved
44Is predation in nature aesthetically negative?
- It was a spotted hyena, the kind people think of
when they hear the word hyenaa dirty, matted
creature, dripping with blood. It must have made
a good kill. The prey must have been large
enough for the hyena to thrust its whole head in,
up to the block like shoulders. This must be why
the hyena has such a snake of a neckso it can
delve deep into a dying animal and eat the best
parts...I saw other hyenas...They were all dipped
in blood...One could see which animal had gnawed
at a leg, cheek pressed to bloody flank, or which
had held a piece to its chest and embraced it
there as it chewed. (Joanna Greenfield, New
Yorker 1996)
45Coyote An ugly killer?
46- Unless we dismiss the moral status of animals and
claim their lives and pain dont count for much - We must acknowledge there is disvalue here and
ugliness that goes along with it.
47Is aesthetic appreciation of predation depraved?
- Like aesthetically appreciating a cougar
attacking a human child? - Because predation expresses violence and involves
suffering and death - It is arguable that those with proper emotional
sympathies for animals will not find it
aesthetically alluring
- If there is any aesthetic value in predation,
perhaps we have a moral obligation not to
appreciate it
48The case for the aesthetic value of predation
- Acknowledge the disvalues of predation
- Animal death
- Not a trivial disvalue
- But not comparable to human death
- Animal suffering
- A disvalue more serious than death
- Requires a sympathetic response
49Positive values of predation
- Animal life
- Death for the prey is life for the predator
- There is not value lost, so much as value
capture (Rolston, 1992) - Production and display of admirable animal traits
- Predation selects for muscle, power, intelligence
and (sometimes) cooperative behavior of predators - Also selects for alertness and fleet-footedness
of prey - Without predation, our world may well have lacked
these valuable traits - Promotes functioning of healthy ecosystems
- Predation regulates prey population and protects
ecosystems
50Predation contextualized and understood
- Disvalue and ugliness are intermingled with and
productive of value and beauty - The aesthetic response to predation must come to
terms not only with the suffering and death
involved, but with the significant positive
values that emerge as well
51Does a duty to prevent predation undermine a
positive aesthetic response to it?
- Given integration, it is problematic to
aesthetically appreciate an event we have a duty
to prevent - Although we could lessen suffering and death in
nature using contraception, such major human
involvement would so compromise natures wild
integrity, that we should not do it - Explains why a positive aesthetic response to a
wolf attacking an elk is radically different from
a positive aesthetic response to a cougar
attacking a human child - Only in the human case is there a duty to
intervene - Because we have no duty to rescue the prey, there
can be no conflict between such a duty and a
positive response to predation
52A positive aesthetic response to predation is
appropriate, but must include sympathy
- A sympathetic emotional response to the preys
suffering and loss of life must color our
appreciation of predation - But it should not wash out the positive aesthetic
response - And it may even deepen it
53Predation A sad, terrible beauty
- There is beauty in predation, but it is not an
easy or pleasurable beauty, such as the delight
in pretty scenery or from seeing a cardinal at
the feeder - Rather it is a sad, terrible beauty, involving
taxing emotions like sympathy and pity
With terrible beauty attention is arrested by
elements that strain the heart and yet they
induce us to linger over them and savor them in
all their heartache and woe (Carolyn Korsmeyer,
2005)
- In predation, the disvalues to the prey
heighten our affective absorption as we
experience this fundamental way that much life
functions on our planet - These disvalues, rather than diminishing it,
may increase the aesthetic value of predation
54Conclusions
- Animal beauty contributes importantly to the
aesthetic justification for environmental
preservation - It is neither morally objectionable nor
superficial to use animals beauty in our valuing
and acting towards them - There are sufficient differences between humans
and animals to disarm the worry that the problems
with aesthetic discrimination toward humans
applies straightforwardly to animals - Although it involves suffering and death,
predation does not constitute ugliness in
animals lives that undermines using animal
beauty for environmental preservation