I think that Midgley would support Peterson's idea. He says that language and reason may not be as important as we first thought. Midgley continuely talks about how animals have thoughts and feelings, throughout her entire book. They suffer and they have emotions.
Just because animals can't speak doesn't mean they don't have emotions, this is what Midgley says. Babies can not speak but we accept and believe that they suffer and have emotions. The same goes for someone who can not talk, they too have the same emotions that people who can talk and express their emotions do. We do not discount them just because we can not understand them so why do that to animals. Animals have a different way of talking and expressing feelings that humans may not understand. This doesn't mean they don't have those emotions though. I think that anyone who has a relationship with an animal, be it a pet or a chimp, would say that they have emotions. We change them into something we can understand though. But like the articles says, animals have hierarchies sometimes, they laugh, they feel emotions towards their dead relatives or friends and they get joy out of cuddling one another. I would say these are all things humans do also. Midgley would probably agree.
Right and worng, this is what morality is, not whether something can reason and has language. Animals love, care about their families and dogs tend to be called loyal. Thus proving that they are no less than humans, really. Just because they can not understand abstract ideas like humans this doesn't change they morality. Anyway, we as humans don't even know for certain if they indeed cannot understand complex and abstract ideas. There is a story about a crow who opened a jar to get to something, I would say that is pretty good. Overall, I think animals are not much less than humans.
