Quote:
Originally Posted by TGS
So, here are some proposition and some questions about them which are intended to flush out some of the issues embedded in the previous conversation:
1) Humans have moral responsibilities towards non-human animals,
2) non-human animals have moral responsibilities towards humans.
3) non-human animals have moral responsibilities to other non-human animals but not to humans
If 1) is true, in virtue of what do those responsibilities arise, and what are they?
If 1) is not true, why not?
If 2) is true, in virtue of what do those responsibilities arise, and what are they?
If 2) is not true, why not?
If 3) is true how is the scope of non-human animal's moral responsibility determined?
|
I think all animals are responsible to obey act in ways consistent with the development of their moral sense. As our ability to empathize grows, our responsibility increases. A child playing outside may not be responsible for wantonly stepping on ants until he or she becomes aware that ants suffer pain. After becoming aware, say, after an adult makes them think about their actions by saying, "How would you like it if someone stepped on you?", their moral sense expands, and thus their responsibility expands. An animal acting upon instinct alone has no such responsibilities until it learns them.