Whilst reading Prof. Dr. Onur Güntürkün‘s research on the avian brain I noticed that they can be quite smart!
Neuropsychologists can train pigeons to sort images — flowers, chairs, patterns. They learn categories, even abstract ones (Wasserman et al., 2024). They grasp complexity, adapt to new rules (Pusch et al., 2024). We applaud their minds — on paper.
Yet their cousins, the chickens, remain invisible. Not mindless, just misjudged. Because if we saw their minds, we’d have to see our own contradictions.
Cognition is not a privilege of language. It is not human-only. It is not permission to dominate.
What if these studies are not just about birds? What if they’re quiet arguments for empathy — in the lab, and at the table?
Selected References
Pusch, R., Stüttgen, M. C., Packheiser, J., Azizi, A. H., Sevincik, C. S., Rose, J., Cheng, S., & Güntürkün, O. (2024). Working memory performance is tied to stimulus complexity. Communications Biology, 7, Article 1326. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-023-05486-7
Wasserman, E. A., Turner, B. M., & Güntürkün, O. (2024). The pigeon as a model of complex visual processing and category learning. Neuroscience Insights, 19, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/26331055241235918
The meat, milk, and eggs we see on supermarket shelves and our tables every day hide the pain and suffering of billions of animals. Ignoring this reality means acting with a human-centered perspective and disrespecting the right to life of other living beings. As a neuroscientist and philosopher, I invite all sensitive individuals to think more deeply about this issue. In this article, I will go beyond anthropocentrism and discuss why we should defend animal rights. I will emphasize the moral value of animals through Joel Feinberg’s concept of “having interests” and Jainism’s principle of “ahimsa”. I will also address the debates on the sentience of plants, highlighting the difference between animal rights and plant rights.
Humans and Nature: A Historical Perspective
Throughout history, humanity has had a complex relationship with nature. Early humans, living in hunter-gatherer societies, were entirely dependent on nature . Natural resources were vital for food, shelter, and toolmaking . During this period, humans saw themselves as part of nature and lived in harmony with it . With the development of agriculture, humans began to shape nature according to their needs, creating a shift in the human-nature relationship . For example, about 4 million years ago, the Australopithecus species developed a skeletal structure that allowed them to adapt to changing humidity and vegetation . This adaptability was one of the first steps humans took towards altering and controlling their environment.
The Industrial Revolution increased human dominance over nature, leading to environmental problems . Factories and mines polluted rivers and air, while deforestation caused widespread environmental damage . Today, issues like global warming, depletion of water resources, and biodiversity loss reveal the extent of human damage to nature . Since 1970, we have lost about 69% of the world’s biodiversity due to human settlements, agriculture, and industrial production . This makes the Earth’s life support systems more fragile . Human activities also support species that thrive in human-modified habitats, such as pigeons in cities, drug-resistant bacteria in hospitals, and grasses in urban environments .
How did humans develop this domineering attitude towards nature? The answer lies in the different definitions of human nature and the factors influencing the human-nature relationship . Human nature can be defined in various ways, including innate abilities, tendencies and capacities, moral and ethical values, biological and genetic makeup, and cultural and social norms . Cultural values and beliefs, socioeconomic status, environmental factors, and personal experiences are among the important factors affecting the human-nature relationship . For example, while some cultures view nature as a spiritual or religious realm, others may perceive it as a resource to be exploited .
We can also look at the human-nature relationship from different perspectives. Anthropocentrism believes that humans are superior to all other living beings and have the right to rule over them . This view has been used to justify the exploitation of natural resources and environmental destruction . Deep ecology, on the other hand, emphasizes the interconnectedness and intrinsic value of all living beings . Ecofeminism combines feminist and ecological ideas to challenge patriarchal domination and promote sustainable living practices . Biophilia argues that humans have an innate affinity for nature and other life forms .
The Achuar people of Ecuador provide a different example of the human-nature relationship . The Achuar have a worldview called animism, which sees no separation between humans and nature and considers all living and non-living beings interconnected . Like many indigenous communities, the Achuar believe in the responsibility to respect and live in harmony with nature .
The evolution of humanity’s relationship with nature has also shaped its interactions with other species. For example, the co-evolution of humans and dogs increased human survival chances . Dogs helped humans with hunting, protection, and companionship . This relationship demonstrates the human capacity for cooperation and learning from other species.
At this point, the concepts of environmental ethics and animal ethics become crucial. Environmental ethics addresses human responsibilities towards nature, while animal ethics questions the moral status of non-human animals. Animal ethics debates have been addressed by different philosophical schools throughout history. In ancient Greek philosophy, Socrates examined the question of how humans should live best and emphasized the importance of reasoning . Aristotle argued that human reason is our most important characteristic and should be developed . Today, practices like industrial animal agriculture, animal experimentation, and habitat destruction make animal ethics discussions even more critical . Humans have become one of the greatest forces influencing the evolution of other organisms through activities like hunting, harvesting, fishing, agriculture, medicine, climate change, pollution, and urbanization .
By examining the historical development of our relationship with nature, we can better understand our ethical responsibilities towards animals. Humans must acknowledge that they are not masters of nature but a part of it, and show respect for other living beings. This understanding forms the basis of animal rights discussions.
Animal Liberation and Peter Singer
Peter Singer is one of the first names that come to mind when discussing animal rights. A pioneer of the animal rights movement with his book “Animal Liberation”, Singer adopts the concept of preference utilitarianism. According to this view, moral actions are those that minimize pain and suffering and maximize happiness for all sentient beings. Singer emphasizes that animals, like humans, can feel pain and pleasure, and therefore their interests should also be considered . Singer’s principle of “equal consideration of interests for all sentient beings” provides a strong argument against speciesism. Speciesism is the discrimination against non-human animals based solely on their species. Singer equates speciesism with racism and sexism, arguing that it is morally unacceptable.
Animal Rights and Philosophical Foundations
There are different philosophical approaches to animal rights. Rights-based approaches, like that of Tom Regan, argue that animals have inherent rights, while utilitarian approaches suggest that animal interests should be considered alongside human interests. The approach I want to focus on is Joel Feinberg’s concept of “having interests”. According to Feinberg, a being does not need to be conscious or feel pain to have interests. A being’s interests are things that matter to its well-being, and these interests can exist regardless of whether the being is conscious or not. For example, a tree needs water to grow and develop, and this water is in the tree’s interest. Even though the tree is not aware of this need, its interest still exists. Feinberg argues that animals, like humans, have interests, and these interests should be taken into account morally. As a neuroscientist, I agree with Feinberg’s view. My observation on animals confirms that they have complex emotional lives and rich social relationships. We know that they can experience emotions like pain, fear, joy, and sadness. Therefore, it is morally wrong to ignore their interests and use them solely for human needs.
Jainism offers an important perspective on animal rights with its principle of “ahimsa” (non-violence). According to Jainism, all living beings are sacred and should not be harmed. This principle encompasses not only physical violence but also violence in thought and speech. Jainism promotes veganism and a compassionate approach towards animals. This understanding of non-violence in Jainism resonates with my vegan lifestyle and animal rights activism. This philosophy, based on not harming animals and respecting them, is a great source of inspiration for me.
Plants and Sentience
A common argument in animal rights discussions is the claim that “plants also have a life”. However, this claim is not scientifically accurate. Unlike animals, plants do not have a nervous system and therefore cannot feel pain . Studies in neuroscience show that pain perception is a complex neurological process, and it is not possible to feel pain without a nervous system (Schlereth & Birklein., 2008). Of course, we should respect the right to life of plants and avoid harming vegetation to protect the environment. However, since plants do not have the capacity to feel, they cannot be equated with animal rights.
Conclusion: The Value of Animals
Joel Feinberg’s concept of “having interests” and Jainism’s principle of “ahimsa” demonstrate that animals have moral value and should have rights. Animals are not merely tools for fulfilling human needs, but valuable beings in their own right. They have interests such as not suffering, living freely, and exhibiting species-specific behaviors. As Feinberg emphasizes, these interests exist regardless of whether animals are conscious or not, and should be considered morally. Jainism’s principle of “ahimsa” reminds us that we should be compassionate and respectful towards all living beings.
We all have a responsibility to raise awareness about animal ethics and protect animals. Choosing a vegan diet, opposing animal experimentation, not supporting industries that exploit animals, and supporting organizations that advocate for animal welfare are just a few of the concrete steps we can take. Let us not forget that animals are as valuable as we are, and protecting their rights is a moral imperative.
Science and arts, often celebrated as pillars of progress, are not exempt from critical scrutiny. While their contributions to knowledge, creativity, and societal advancement are undeniable, their impact on human morality and nature requires closer examination. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a profound critic of civilisation’s excesses, argued that science and arts, rather than elevating human morality, have often led to its corruption. This critique resonates with Thomas Hobbes’s view of human nature as inherently competitive and self-serving. For a painter like me, these reflections are vital as they unveil the complex interplay between creativity, ambition, and morality. This essay explores the moral damage inflicted by science and arts on human nature, connecting Hobbes’s insights with Rousseau’s critique and analysing how civilization fosters competition, envy, and alienation.
Rousseau’s Critique of Civilisation and Arts
Rousseau’s seminal work, Discourse on the Sciences and Arts, underscores how the advancement of knowledge and artistic expression has led to the degeneration of human morality. Rousseau contended that humanity’s original state of innocence—a time characterized by simple, authentic living—was corrupted as societies developed artificial values through scientific and artistic pursuits. According to Rousseau:
“Everything is good as it comes from the hands of the Creator; everything degenerates in the hands of man.”
This degeneration manifests as a loss of authenticity, with individuals driven by pride (amour-propre), vanity, and a desire to appear superior to others. The arts, instead of fostering virtue, have become tools for display, fostering competition, envy, and moral decay. Science, with its emphasis on material advancement, alienates individuals from their natural selves, creating a culture obsessed with external recognition rather than internal contentment.
Hobbes and Rousseau: Diverging Views on Human Nature
Hobbes famously argued in Leviathan that humans are inherently selfish and competitive, driven by a constant struggle for power and survival. In the natural state, Hobbes described life as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” However, Rousseau’s vision diverged; he viewed the natural state as one of purity and simplicity, free from the corrupting influences of civilisation. Yet, there is a compelling intersection in their philosophies: the depiction of humanity’s moral corruption in a social context.
For Hobbes, the competitive nature of humans is innate, whereas Rousseau argued that this competitiveness arises from societal constructs. In civilised societies, the pursuit of science and arts exacerbates these tendencies. Rousseau’s concept of amour-propre highlights how individuals’ desire for recognition fuels envy, rivalry, and alienation—traits that Hobbes would recognize as intrinsic but which Rousseau attributes to civilisation’s distortion of natural instincts.
The Role of Science and Arts in Moral Corruption
Science and arts, as Rousseau argues, have become tools for self-aggrandizement rather than instruments of virtue. The rise of artificial needs, coupled with the desire to surpass others, fosters an environment of relentless competition. As Rousseau noted, the development of private property, a cornerstone of civilisation, introduced inequality and envy, laying the foundation for moral corruption:
“The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying ‘This is mine,’ and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society.”
In the same way, the cultivation of the arts and sciences serves to erect barriers between individuals, fueling pride and superficiality. This degeneration can be seen in modern society, where technological advancements often widen social divides and artistic expressions are commodified, catering to ego and vanity rather than the common good.
Competition, Envy, and Alienation
Rousseau’s analysis of amour-propre reveals the dangers of societal constructs that encourage comparison and competition. As people measure their worth against others, they become enslaved to external validation. This phenomenon mirrors Hobbes’s view of perpetual conflict among humans driven by a desire for power and security.
The arts, as a painter’s domain, provide a poignant example. While artistic creation has the potential to connect with universal truths, it is often subverted by market forces and the artist’s desire for recognition. The competitive nature of the art world mirrors Rousseau’s critique of civilisation: artists, rather than creating for the sake of expression, frequently find themselves vying for prestige and financial success. This struggle fosters envy and alienation, as artists distance themselves from their original, authentic motivations.
Rousseau’s Vision of Redemption
Despite his criticism, Rousseau did not view the degeneration of humanity as irreversible. He proposed a return to simplicity and authenticity through moral and political reform. In The Social Contract, Rousseau argued for a society grounded in collective will, where individuals prioritise the common good over personal gain. This vision, while idealistic, offers a blueprint for overcoming the moral corruption induced by science and arts.
For artists, this redemption lies in reconnecting with the true essence of creativity. Art should transcend superficiality, becoming a medium for introspection and shared human experience. As a painter, I strive to reflect these ideals in my work, seeking to evoke genuine emotion and universal truth rather than catering to fleeting trends or societal expectations.
Conclusion
The interplay between science, arts, and morality reveals a complex tapestry of human nature, ambition, and societal constructs. Rousseau’s critique of the moral damage caused by science and arts challenges us to reconsider their role in our lives. When pursued without restraint or ethical grounding, these endeavours can foster competition, envy, and alienation, distancing humanity from its natural state and core values. By examining these themes through the lens of Hobbes and Rousseau, we uncover timeless truths about the human condition and the need for a balance between progress and authenticity. For painters and creators, the challenge lies in resisting the pull of superficiality and embracing art as a means of truth and connection, offering a counterpoint to the moral corrosion of modern civilisation.
Gündem / Agenda 