The negative impact of scientific ideology on education about the moral status of animals
The negative impact of scientific ideology on education about the moral status of animals

Summary/Abstract: The article presents an analysis of the ethical views of Bernard Rollin, an American zoologistand philosopher who examined how the education about the moral status of animals has beenaffected by the so-called scientific ideology. This way of thinking denies animal suffering andconsciousness in stark contrast with our commonsense knowledge and collective humanexperience. Rollin points to positivism and behaviourism as twin philosophical and psychologicalsources of this scientific ideology. Positivism rejected the concept of consciousness as a subjective,metaphysical, unscientific, non-measurable state and separated science from valuesand ethics. Behaviourism further obstructed moral reflection on the acceptable methods oftreatment of animals not only by eliminating the category of animal consciousness, but also byreplacing the vocabulary to describe its experimental manifestations with one of observableactions (reinforcement and aversion). Behaviourism denies animal suffering and other states ofconsciousness on the epistemological principle that they are difficult to verify. This paradigmcontinues to be successfully applied in modern biomedical laboratories and blinds scientiststo both the pain inflicted on animals and the moral repercussions of animal consciousness.Positivism and behaviourism alike cast animals as models and biological mechanisms to distortour understanding of their nature and justify their harm.The article presents an analysis of the ethical views of Bernard Rollin, an American zoologistand philosopher who examined how the education about the moral status of animals hasbeen affected by the so-called scientific ideology. This way of thinking denies animal sufferingand consciousness in stark contrast with our commonsense knowledge and collective humanexperience. Rollin points to positivism and behaviourism as twin philosophical and psychologicalsources of this scientific ideology. Positivism rejected the concept of consciousness asa subjective, metaphysical, unscientific, non-measurable state and separated science from valuesand ethics. Behaviourism further obstructed moral reflection on the acceptable methods oftreatment of animals not only by eliminating the category of animal consciousness, but also byreplacing the vocabulary to describe its experimental manifestations with one of observableactions (reinforcement and aversion). Behaviourism denies animal suffering and other states ofconsciousness on the epistemological principle that they are difficult to verify. This paradigmcontinues to be successfully applied in modern biomedical laboratories and blinds scientiststo both the pain inflicted on animals and the moral repercussions of animal consciousness.Positivism and behaviourism alike cast animals as models and biological mechanisms to distortour understanding of their nature and justify their harm.

• Details
• Contents