Man's Best Friend

“Dogs are a man’s best friend.” We’ve all come across the phrase before, and it will likely bring a smile to any dog-lover’s face. I, being a dog owner, would like to think that my dog loves me as much as I love her. You can then imagine how distressed I was when I read Descartes’ strong stance on cognitive ability in animals (or lack thereof). Descartes asserts in Discourse on the Method that animals do not possess a rational, reasoning soul by highlighting both their lack of spoken language and lack of autonomy in their actions. Although inferior to rational souls, the sensitive souls of animals should still be valued by humanity just as God has valued them, regardless of their mental powers.

We can clearly observe differences in animal and human behavior, and Descartes presents two ways to distinguish man from beast. The first and most prominent way is through verbal language. He claims that “there are no men so dull-witted and stupid… that they are incapable of stringing together different words… through which they let their thoughts be known” and, in contrast, there is “no other animal, no matter how perfect… that can do anything similar” (Descartes, 47). You may guffaw incredulously at this bold claim. After all, parrots can speak! Apes can communicate through sign language, and a few of them can even sound out words! The distinction that must be drawn in this instance, then, is that of imitation versus conception.

Most of the time, upon hearing the phrase “Polly wants a cracker,” our minds immediately picture a colorful, squawking bird aboard a pirate ship. While these parrots are often praised for their spot-on impressions of the human voice, that’s all the words are: impressions. Descartes notes both the parrot and the magpie when contrasting humans and animals in their ability to speak. He addresses the fact that, despite missing vital organs necessary for speech, deaf and dumb humans will nevertheless “invent certain signs to make themselves understood by those who are their habitual companions and have the time to learn their language” (Descartes, 47). Animals, however, will never intentionally utilize their organs for speech despite being capable of sounding out words. Although parrots and magpies alike can perform spot-on imitations of human words, they cannot conceive of their own. Words do not qualify as speech if they are simply being repeated and imitated; there must be some form of understanding and thought behind them. The absence of formal language among animals is indicative of their inability to form rational thought and conceptualize ways to communicate them. Animals “have many organs that correspond to ours” (Descartes, 48), yet they cannot devise a language of their own by utilizing their speaking organs. This is a testament to the fact that they do not possess the mental faculties of their human counterparts. 

Humans are the only species on earth who have consistently invented and reformed verbal communication through speech, and Descartes suggests that this alone should be proof enough for declaring that animals cannot reason as humans do. Language is not the only way to distinguish human from beast, however, and the second way traces all the way back to the survival instinct.

Animals are wholly subject to their biological functions and instinctive passions and are therefore unable to act against them. Lions will hunt gazelles, and gazelle will run from lions. A gazelle will not sacrifice itself to give its fellow gazelle a chance to run, they will simply do what their bodies instruct them to do: run. While animals cannot overcome their own nature, humans can. In fact, humans are the only species capable of rising above their primal instincts, therefore rendering them the only species capable of moral choice. Humans can knowingly choose to relinquish their life for the sake of another’s. Humans can “[distinguish] the true from the false”, and can both possess a “good mind… and apply it correctly” (Descartes, 5). According to Descartes, the “greatest minds are capable of the greatest vices as well as the greatest virtues” (Descartes, 5). If we follow this line of reasoning, it then suggests that the littlest minds would be capable of neither vice nor virtue; or free choice in general. If an animal lacks free will and the ability to choose outside of its own biologically driven nature, then it follows that they would have little to no minds at all. Animals cannot reason past their own nature, and cannot make moral decisions. Rather, their decisions all come from a place of reaction, driven by their survival instincts. Although animals may have sensitive souls (that is, generally reactive), they are incapable of rational thought and are ultimately inferior to human souls because of this.

Although animal souls may be inferior to rational souls in that they lack both the capability for rational thought and a moral compass, they are still valued by God. The Garden of Eden (metaphorical or not) was an intended paradise, within which animals roamed in peace amongst one another and man. Jesus mentions that God takes care of even the smallest bird when he states that animals “do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet [the] Heavenly Father feeds them” (Matt. 6:26, The New International Version). Animals are still God’s creation, and we should treat them as valuable beings regardless of their mental capabilities. Furthermore, animals provide humanity with another opportunity to show grace and love to the creation that was entrusted to us by God. The way we treat those who cannot speak for themselves is directly reflective of the state of our own souls, and the more we show love and kindness to our animals, the healthier our interactions will be with humanity as a whole. Although my dog may only have a purely sensitive soul and thus incapable of loving me as I love her, I will undoubtedly continue to do so.