The Problem of Anthropomorphization in the Study of Non-Human Animals

Abstract

The article examines the meaning of the term “anthropomorphism”, its role and meaning, and discusses the various criticisms levelled against this term as a methodological tool. Voices “for” and “against” anthropomorphism are heard both from the representatives of natural and human sciences, both from anthropocentrists and non-anthropocentrists, which in itself is an interesting phenomenon proving the complexity and ambiguity of the concept under consideration. Anthropomorphization of non-human animals can be a source of lack of objectivity and can lead to falsification of scientific data and, above all, provide harm to animals themselves and cause an undesirable phenomenon – anthropocentrism in terms of animal ethics. The result (conscious or not) of scientists’ anthropocentrism may be a decrease in the status of non-human animals that do not meet the requirements of similarity with us. On the other hand, anthropomorphism is an inevitable way of human thinking about the world, a cognitive mechanism, and, at the same time, a device that potentially unites people and nonpeople. I argue that critical anthropomorphism as a scientific tool should not be excluded from the field of science, but at the same time it should not lead to the development of ethical judgments from anthropocentric positions.