Dependent Rational Animals - Book Report/Review Example

In his book Dependent Rational Animals, Alasdair MacIntyre questions arguments put forth by other of philosophy regarding animals and intelligence. He presents arguments supporting his opinion that non-human animals can think, and points out flaws or oversights in the previous texts and studies of Malcolm, Aristotle, Heidigger and others who claim that non-human animals do not have the capacity to think. In addition to primates, which most resemble the human animal, MacIntyre refers to studies by Louis M. Herman involving dolphins to support his ideas. I agree with MacIntyre that non-human animals can think. MacIntyre refers frequently to the behavior of dolphins in support of his claim that non-human animals can think. Their brain to body mass is similar to that of humans, and they live, hunt, and play in organized groups that are similar to human society. In order to argue that dolphins can think, we must ask what criteria is to be used to establish what it means “to think.” MacIntyre does not believe that a species must have a language in order to think. Dolphins and other animals make decisions, change their behaviors to attain a desired outcome, explore their environment and act upon what they find, and have belief systems that demonstrate their capacity to think. Within their social structure dolphins are assigned tasks to help further the needs of the community. For example, scouts will search for sources of food ahead of the main group of hunters. MacIntyre uses this system as an example of the dolphins’ ability to make decisions, thereby demonstrating capacity for thought processes. When a scout discovers a food source it signals the rest of the group, which changes their course to follow the scout. Without this signal from the scout, the group would have had no reason to change course and therefore would have continued forward. The fact that they made an active decision to follow the scout implies that they are conscious of their goals and the best way to achieve those goals. Another example in the text is that of a group of dolphins hunting fish and “corralling” them toward another group, the result being that the school of fish is caught in between the two groups of dolphins, thereby maximizing the food while minimizing the effort to attain it. In this way dolphins demonstrate that they can plan and execute a strategic maneuver as a group, which obviously requires the ability to think. Other philosophers claim that non-human animals are merely part of their environment and thereby limited in what they do based upon the type of environment they are in and the limitations of that environment. MacIntyre disagrees. He points out that many non-human animals actively explore their environments. They exhibit curiosity and demonstrate the ability to recognize familiar objects and to show fear of threatening objects. They engage their environment and learn from the results of their past activities in said environment. They are aware of what has been removed from their environment and will grieve for missing companions - both non-human and human. Many philosophers argue that without a language, animals cannot think - how can they think if they cannot express their thoughts? How can they act upon beliefs if they cannot explain those beliefs? MacIntyre compares these non-linguistic animals to infant human children. Rather than think of them as non-linguistic, he argues that higher forms of non-human animals (i.e.; dolphins, chimpanzees, even dogs and cats) are pre-linguistic just as children are. There is no doubt that infants and toddlers can think. They actively engage their environment, change behaviors based upon outcomes, and have distinct and changeable beliefs. They also have no language at that stage of their lives. To support this, MacIntyre refers to research done by Louis M. Herman and his research team. Their studies of dolphins led to the creation of a fictional acoustic language which they have successfully taught to dolphins for the purpose of communication between the humans and the dolphins. The dolphins are able to learn this language as well as learn nuances of the language. Rather than merely associating a word (i.e.; ball) with an object, they distinguish between syntax as well. A dolphin is not only able to recognize the sentence, “take the ball to the trainer,” but it also recognizes nonsense sentences and be confused by the sentence, “ball, trainer, take to it.” The ability to think is required in order to make such a distinction. I have never doubted that non-human animals are able to think. They don’t even have to be as smart as dolphins or chimpanzees. What some may argue is merely instinctual behavior, I believe is learned behavior. In order to learn, one must be taught. In order to be taught, one must be able to think. It may be instinctual for a squirrel to know it must eat, but the squirrel must learn by trial and error what to eat. Then it must figure out where to get an adequate supply of this food. It must learn what dangers stand in the way of obtaining this food and how to overcome them. I will use my neighborhood squirrels as an example. They spend a good portion of their day looking for seeds, nuts and other good things to eat, so I like to toss out a handful of peanuts and watch them run around the yard gathering them up. They have learned that my backyard is an excellent place to find peanuts. I have cats that also enjoy when the squirrels visit, but for different reasons; the cats like to chase the squirrels, thereby presenting an obstacle between the squirrels and their food. To conquer this obstacle, the squirrels have developed distraction techniques involving luring the cats to chase one squirrel while the other(s) grab peanuts. This plan required active thinking by the squirrels, as opposed to merely relying upon some primordial instinctual response. The squirrels are also able to distinguish between people. After many seasons of feeding them, they have learned to recognize me as a helpful being. They will even run up my pant leg to grab peanuts out of my hand. They will not, however, approach anyone else. They have learned to trust me. They also know where I keep the peanuts (on top of the refrigerator) and will enter my kitchen through an open door or window in order to get to them. While some psychologists may contribute this peanut-seeking behavior to classical conditioning, I beg to differ. In order to accomplish this raid, several thinking acts were engaged. The squirrels had to recognize the bag as the same one I took the peanuts from and they had to figure out an entrance to the house. Although they lack an actual language, there was an extent of communication and coordination of efforts. Another reason why I believe non-human animals can think is because many types make a conscious effort to communicate with humans. Domestic animals, especially, seem to recognize their dependence upon humans and the need for communication with us. We have all heard stories of animals going to great lengths to rescue a human – the dog waking its owner to the smell of smoke, the horse patiently helping a fallen rider. This demonstrates a capacity for caring and recognition that requires thought. I have even seen animals mourn the loss of their companion humans. Part of this human to non-human animal communication involves learning to obey commands. In the case of domestic dogs, training includes commands to “sit,” “stay,” “heel,” etc. Even the well-trained dog will occasionally display his own will, however. This can be seen when the dog tries to sneak out of bounds and is caught by his owner. The human may call out “Come!” or “Get back here!” When you notice the dog hesitate, look around, hesitate some more, then eventually run back to the owner, you are observing the dog making up its mind. In this instance, the dog is essentially weighing his options and deciding if, at that moment, what he is interested outside the yard is worth making his owner angry. There are times when it is, and times when it is not. Either way, the dog had to think about what it wanted to do. Cats also present an observable desire to communicate with humans. To support this, I would like to bring your attention a difference between wild cats (lions, tigers, etc.) and domestic cats. In the wild, cats communicate with each other primarily non-verbally. Upon living in close quarters with humans, they learn to communicate with their human companions in a more vocal manner. I propose this is because humans talk so much, and aren’t as aware of the subtle non-verbal messages of “cat conversation” so the cats speak up to get our attention. Pet owners learn to recognize the distinct messages relayed by the different sounds of their cat in much the same way that new parents will learn to recognize the different cries of their baby. “I’m hungry” sounds different than “I’m lonely.” All of these behaviors require the ability to think; some even call for minimal amounts of reasoning. This is a higher level function than mere instinct. There have been reports of cattle predicting tornadoes in the mid-west. This is an instinctual response to changes in the barometric pressure and other environmental cues. It does not require thought. A dog weighing the decision to obey a command from its owner, on the other hand, does require thought. Although not all non-human animals have evolved to the point that they have complex thought processes, many mammals have. Granted, the spider or the termite might not be able to reason out its next action or plan a series of behaviors, but dogs, cats, primates, whales, dolphins and others can. If one pays attention, and keeps an open mind, it is possible to observe this thinking behavior. Read More

They exhibit curiosity and demonstrate the ability to recognize familiar objects and to show fear of threatening objects. They engage their environment and learn from the results of their past activities in said environment. They are aware of what has been removed from their environment and will grieve for missing companions - both non-human and human. Many philosophers argue that without a language, animals cannot think - how can they think if they cannot express their thoughts? How can they act upon beliefs if they cannot explain those beliefs?

MacIntyre compares these non-linguistic animals to infant human children. Rather than think of them as non-linguistic, he argues that higher forms of non-human animals (i.e.; dolphins, chimpanzees, even dogs and cats) are pre-linguistic just as children are. There is no doubt that infants and toddlers can think. They actively engage their environment, change behaviors based upon outcomes, and have distinct and changeable beliefs. They also have no language at that stage of their lives. To support this, MacIntyre refers to research done by Louis M.

Herman and his research team. Their studies of dolphins led to the creation of a fictional acoustic language which they have successfully taught to dolphins for the purpose of communication between the humans and the dolphins. The dolphins are able to learn this language as well as learn nuances of the language. Rather than merely associating a word (i.e.; ball) with an object, they distinguish between syntax as well. A dolphin is not only able to recognize the sentence, “take the ball to the trainer,” but it also recognizes nonsense sentences and be confused by the sentence, “ball, trainer, take to it.

” The ability to think is required in order to make such a distinction. I have never doubted that non-human animals are able to think. They don’t even have to be as smart as dolphins or chimpanzees. What some may argue is merely instinctual behavior, I believe is learned behavior. In order to learn, one must be taught. In order to be taught, one must be able to think. It may be instinctual for a squirrel to know it must eat, but the squirrel must learn by trial and error what to eat. Then it must figure out where to get an adequate supply of this food.

It must learn what dangers stand in the way of obtaining this food and how to overcome them. I will use my neighborhood squirrels as an example. They spend a good portion of their day looking for seeds, nuts and other good things to eat, so I like to toss out a handful of peanuts and watch them run around the yard gathering them up. They have learned that my backyard is an excellent place to find peanuts. I have cats that also enjoy when the squirrels visit, but for different reasons; the cats like to chase the squirrels, thereby presenting an obstacle between the squirrels and their food.

To conquer this obstacle, the squirrels have developed distraction techniques involving luring the cats to chase one squirrel while the other(s) grab peanuts. This plan required active thinking by the squirrels, as opposed to merely relying upon some primordial instinctual response. The squirrels are also able to distinguish between people. After many seasons of feeding them, they have learned to recognize me as a helpful being. They will even run up my pant leg to grab peanuts out of my hand.

They will not, however, approach anyone else. They have learned to trust me. They also know where I keep the peanuts (on top of the refrigerator) and will enter my kitchen through an open door or window in order to get to them. While some psychologists may contribute this peanut-seeking behavior to classical conditioning, I beg to differ. In order to accomplish this raid, several thinking acts were engaged. The squirrels had to recognize the bag as the same one I took the peanuts from and they had to figure out an entrance to the house.

Although they lack an actual language, there was an extent of communication and coordination of efforts.

Read More