Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparrow
"that human morality has application only to humans"  . My ethical sense (for what it's worth) strongly inclines me to apply consideration to other species.
First and foremost I regard myself as an animal, that is how I primarily understand my identity - being human is a lesser aspect of what I consider myself to be. |
What I'm understanding you to mean is that how humans treat non-human animals is subject to ethical consideration and constraint. If that's right then that's an aspect of human morality - which is consistent with what I said. It is, so far as we now, only humans who have any moral sense in relation to putting shampoo into the eyes of lab rabbits or keeping pigs in spaces so confined that they cannot turn round. The rabbits and pigs might have a response to being in these situations but it's probably not a moral response. Similarly we might, in an anthropomorphic way, not like to see a chimpanzee steal a baby from another chimpanzee and eat it - but it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to ascribe to the cannibalizing chimpanzee or its act, some moral value.
It's in those two senses that I meant that human morality has application only to humans.