Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree here, but in a way I'm trying to address Sparrow's concern that the discussion hasn't bottomed out what it's talking about - so I'll persist for a bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WT Sharpe
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.
|
If I understand this right you are saying that there is a link between "moral responsibility" and an animal's (we'll leave other non-animate beings out of it for the moment eh?), capacity to understand the impact of its action on another being - if an animal has no understanding of that impact then they cannot be held morally responsible?
Let's use your example - once the kid "knows" that stepping on ants causes them, the ants, to feel pain the kid has a moral responsibility to...
not deliberately step on ants?
take care not to accidentally step on ants?
make adjustments to their life so as to virtually guarantee that they will not step on ants?