Quote:
Originally Posted by TimMason
... Let me take up another thread: I will deny that animals can have anything like a morality. This is because I conceive of morality - or ethics - as conversational, and dogs do not have conversations. (They may exchange information, but they do not converse). ...
|
It's extremely unlikely that non-human animals have the capacity to argue over whether consequentialist systems of ethics are superior to deontological systems or vice versa, but I do believe the higher animals possess a sense of right and wrong behavior, and that's all that's required for a rudimentary sense of morality; hence the shame on the face of a well-trained dog who has peed in the house because no one was there to let him out at the appropriate time. It's true that this statement leaves me open to the charge of anthropomorphism, but I would counter that it's more in line with our ability to empathize with other creatures who evolved in a manner not too dissimilar from our own than those who would make the charge are willing to concede. To be certain, we must be extremely careful when attempting to discern the motivations of non-human animals, but it's no more impossible to do so in my opinion than it is impossible to discern the motivations of other humans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimMason
I'm sorry - I'll be away tomorrow, and perhaps the next day, so I won't be able to reply to your further objections, or admit defeat or whatever it is that I should be doing.
|
We'll keep your chair warm for ya'! Hope that whatever is calling you away is something pleasurable.
