We must consider Hauser’s argument that animals are
only moral patients, since this provides the basis for his thesis that they are
not self-aware. His reasons that animals are not moral agents are that they:
(a) do not have empathy, being not self-aware; (b) cannot inhibit themselves,
being incapable of conceptual change; (c) do not consider the beliefs and
desires of others; (d) do not understand how their actions impact others, which
requires being able to attribute mental states to others; (e) do not understand
duty and responsibility; and (f) do not understand norms of emotions and
actions in their societies – further, they
have no concept of right or wrong. He offers only a limited acknowledgement of
animal consciousness.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
What is ironic is that Hauser began by attempting to
understand animals in terms of their own environments. The remarkable thing
about Hauser’s list, however, is that it measures animals against human
standards. Not only is his account anthropocentric; it is also highly
implausible for evolutionary reasons. If there has been one big message from
Darwin it is that we are part of nature.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
As is well known, Darwin and others showed us that humans
are animals, differentiated only by species membership and not ontologically
different from others. We all sit on a consciousness continuum, though some
differences are qualitative. Since all organisms evolved to confront problems
in their environments, it would be at least reasonable to think that we all did
so in similar ways, and to different levels of sophistication.