Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
adrenalin? Why do the swallows return to Capistrano?), it
disapproves
of them. We shouldn't say that mechanistic worldviews, however pow-
erful, falsify teleological ones; rather they reject them. Commitment
to either of these metaphysical worldviews is going to be a valuational
commitment based on one's preference of “how” to “why,” or in one's
predilection for control of nature, rather than awe for it.
Thus, for Aristotle, telos is a foundational concept for looking at the
world. It is the cornerstone of biology, which in turn is the paradigm for
all fully legitimate explanation. In dealing with the nonhuman world, it
seems to have no ethical import for Aristotle; it is rather a template for
scientific investigation. But that does not mean it cannot have ethical sig-
nificance, and I will shortly demonstrate that it does, or rather has come
to enjoy such significance.
There is, in Aristotle, no overt ethic for treating nonhuman beings,
despite his recognition that many animals feel pleasure and pain and have
desires.
1
This is not surprising for a variety of reasons. In the first place,
given Aristotle's belief in a natural hierarchy, certain things are inferior,
and the inferior exists to be used by the superior.
2
Hence his notion of
“natural slaves.” Indeed, he affirms that “the use made of slaves and of
tame animals is not very different.” On the other hand, as he says in
De
Anima
, “All tame animals are better off when they are ruled by man;
for then they are preserved” (1.5).
From this passage, it would appear that Aristotle believed that proper
(ethical) care for domestic animals naturally follows from domestication,
and for this reason, we may infer, it is not an issue. What can he mean
by this? I believe he anticipates the fact that, from antiquity until the
mid-twentieth century,
husbandry
was key to the successful keeping of
animals—be it for food, fiber, locomotion, or power—in all agrarian
societies. Husbandry, a word derived from the old Norse word
hus/bond
,
“bonded to the household,” meant that domestic animals existed in a
state of symbiotic unity with their human owners. In husbandry, a human
put an animal into the optimal conditions possible for which that animal
had biologically evolved, and then augmented the animal's natural ability
to survive and thrive with additional care—provision of food during
famine, water during drought, medical attention, help in birthing,
protection from predators, and so on. Both the human and the animal
were better off by virtue of the “contract”: animals benefited from our
