Re: Kim's animal consciousness

In response to Paul and Mendel's paper Kim asked, "Are consciousness and cognitive abilities linked to such an extent that we cannot or should not separate them when considering the rights of animals?"

Throughout Kim's post she discussed the difference between cognition, consciousness, and self-consciousness. Cognition being the process of learning, memory, and manipulating information. Consciousness being the awareness of feelings, ideas, and emotions. Self-consciousness being the awareness that your feelings, thoughts, and emotions belong to you.

Cognitive abilities and consciousness cannot be separated when considering the rights of animals because this determines how responsible they are for their actions. Cognitive abilities should not be separated when considering the rights of animals because those are determining factors for the rights of humans. Therefore it would be speciesist for cognitive abilities and consciousness not to be considered. Let me explain.



I was always taught that people only resort to violence because their words aren't strong enough to knock the other person down. Until recently, little did I know how much truth this proverb holds. In psychological testing this week my class talked about IQ tests and the link between low verbal IQ scores and the likelihood of incarceration. This is because people who have low verbal IQ scores have a trouble communicating so they solve their problems by other means. Say for example Bob has a low verbal IQ score and he thinks Frank stole his money. Instead of Bob yelling at Frank and confronting him, he resorts to violence. He lets his emotions compensate for what his words cannot do. Whether or not Bob is aware that his emotions are in control of his actions or not, they still are. Kim stated, "One can be intelligent and communicate without emotions." This may be true, but one cannot be intelligent without being able to communicate their emotions.

These people with low verbal IQ scores and low communication abilities support Frey's theory. That language is a necessary condition for rights.

This is the same with animals. Animals cannot communicate verbally or if they do in their own language, the versatility isn't nearly as high as an average humans. So they also resort to actions. The difference is that animals cannot help but to reside to there actions. Humans, even at the low verbal IQ level they still have more of a choice.

My question is: Is there a better way to determine animals rights?