In Martha Nussbaum’s thought-provoking book, “Justice for Animals: Our Collective Responsibility,” she presents a compelling example that challenges our conventional understanding of justice and raises fundamental questions about the moral consideration we extend to non-human animals.
Nussbaum introduces us to Susan, an animal living her life, pursuing her goals and navigating the challenges that come her way. Initially, Susan encounters various hurdles, some trivial and inconsequential to her well-being, while others more serious, such as an illness or a destructive storm. These difficulties, though unfortunate, do not constitute injustice. However, the situation takes a different turn when another creature deliberately encroaches on Susan’s space and obstructs her from reaching her goals.
If this were a human scenario, we would readily recognize the presence of injustice. Deliberate destruction of Susan’s home, confinement in unsanitary conditions, and the infliction of violence upon her would be seen as grave violations of her rights and dignity. Yet, the crucial question Nussbaum poses is whether the fact that Susan is a non-human animal should diminish our obligation to acknowledge her suffering and demand justice on her behalf.
Traditional notions of justice have predominantly centered around human-to-human interactions, neglecting the moral consideration owed to non-human animals. However, Nussbaum challenges this anthropocentric view, arguing that our conception of justice should transcend species boundaries and embrace all sentient beings capable of experiencing suffering.
The capacity to suffer and experience harm should be the basis for moral consideration and the inclusion of non-human animals within our framework of justice. If we recognize that Susan’s suffering is intrinsically wrong when inflicted upon a human, we ought to extend the same moral concern when it happens to a non-human animal like Susan.
Expanding our conception of justice to accommodate non-human animals aligns with the principles of fairness, compassion, and empathy that underlie the very essence of justice itself. Just as we condemn acts of cruelty and injustice when perpetrated against humans, we should extend these principles to encompass the well-being and rights of non-human animals.
In doing so, we acknowledge the inherent value of all sentient beings, regardless of their species, and accept our collective responsibility to ensure their welfare and protection. This broader perspective on justice compels us to question existing practices that exploit and harm animals, such as factory farming, animal testing, and the destruction of natural habitats.
By integrating the interests and rights of non-human animals into our conception of justice, we create a more inclusive and ethical society. We recognize that our actions towards animals have real and tangible consequences, not just for them but also for our shared environment and the interconnected web of life.
Martha Nussbaum’s example of Susan challenges us to reconsider our conception of justice and recognize the moral significance of non-human animals. Just as we would readily identify injustice if Susan were human, we should extend the same moral consideration to her as a non-human animal. Expanding our framework of justice to encompass all sentient beings fosters a more compassionate and equitable society, where the well-being and rights of animals are valued and protected. Ultimately, justice should make space for Susan and all beings who can suffer and experience harm, regardless of their species.