Maybe they do, but they don't have the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong. So long as we're the only species with that capability, we're the only species I'll work to help.
Do non-human animals have feelings?
- Thread starter Ho-Oh
- Start date
- 510
- Posts
- 14
- Years
- Seen Dec 4, 2011
Why does the capability to understand right from wrong define who is deserving of help or not in your book?
Do you even have a full grasp of the difference between right and wrong? What is the right right and wrong and what is the wrong right and wrong?
I don't really want to get into a philosophy discussion here, but suffice it to say that I believe the scope of morality only covers those species who are capable of understanding it. An untrained animal would have no qualms about killing me, eating me, and then going down to the watering hole to wash me down. Why should I protect something like that besides in an environmental sense?
I understand some people might disagree with me, but I'll try to be honest. I see two types of animals: property and not property. Animals that are owned by people deserve the same protection that any other property would get. And, as with any property that puts people in danger, they cannot and should not be favored before a human life.
As for animals that are not property, they deserve protection in the broad sense that killing them may upset the environment, which might in turn hurt people. However, if any animal put any human life in danger, I'd kill it without a second thought. I understand this is an absurd hypothetical, but I would kill a thousand bears/whales/dogs/cats to save a single human life, regardless of what kind of life the person led. I could not live myself if I did anything different.
- 510
- Posts
- 14
- Years
- Seen Dec 4, 2011
I see. My point being however we are imperfect ourselves - even we don't fully grasp morality. For a start we (as a species) disagree on it so much.
I understand this is your held belief, but I hope you wouldn't mind me pointing out a contradiction? You say that you wouldn't mind killing a thousand animals to save a human no matter what this human was like because animals have no sense of morality (arguable for certain species but we'll go with that). But what if this human, for example, also has no sense of morality? Either due to a psychological condition or just their twisted personality? Or a child who has never been taught even the basics of right and wrong due to bad parenting, or a feral child who has never even had a sniff at human culture (so is pretty much an animal in the mind)? Ones that cannot be reformed because they're too far gone? Would you kill a thousand of that type of human/child to save one human that understood morals?
If not, it would be in a sense accepting their nature (however flawed/damaged) for who they are. They cannot help how they are and can't help their lack of morality, but deserve the same right as any to live. If this was your answer, how does this make it different from an animal who doesn't understand morals?
Same goes for a human that understands morals yet actively chooses to commit acts of evil, by what is in a sense evil from their point of view. Would you kill a thousand of them to save one morally abiding human? Would you kill a thousand animals to save this type of human? Or what if they abide by their sense of morals, but they're so drastically different from yours they seem evil by comparison?
Not expecting my argument to change your opinion at all. It's just food for thought.
I understand this is your held belief, but I hope you wouldn't mind me pointing out a contradiction? You say that you wouldn't mind killing a thousand animals to save a human no matter what this human was like because animals have no sense of morality (arguable for certain species but we'll go with that). But what if this human, for example, also has no sense of morality? Either due to a psychological condition or just their twisted personality? Or a child who has never been taught even the basics of right and wrong due to bad parenting, or a feral child who has never even had a sniff at human culture (so is pretty much an animal in the mind)? Ones that cannot be reformed because they're too far gone? Would you kill a thousand of that type of human/child to save one human that understood morals?
If not, it would be in a sense accepting their nature (however flawed/damaged) for who they are. They cannot help how they are and can't help their lack of morality, but deserve the same right as any to live. If this was your answer, how does this make it different from an animal who doesn't understand morals?
Same goes for a human that understands morals yet actively chooses to commit acts of evil, by what is in a sense evil from their point of view. Would you kill a thousand of them to save one morally abiding human? Would you kill a thousand animals to save this type of human? Or what if they abide by their sense of morals, but they're so drastically different from yours they seem evil by comparison?
Not expecting my argument to change your opinion at all. It's just food for thought.
I get where you're coming from, but animals eating you, isn't neccassarily wrong. I mean, most humans would veiw it as wrong but, we as humans don't have any qualms about killing cows, sheep, pigs etc to eat. Dogs are loyal, they try and protect their owners. But they still get killed and eaten in some countries. It's just natual to hunt something to eat.
I also don't think animals that are not property, should be treated differently just because nobody has taken it from the wild. I mean, if a tiger came up to you and a group of people to kill you, it's one tiger, and you'd kill it if you could. But I don't think they should be thought of as horrible, simply because most people can't own one.
And for me, if I was in that situation, I could not live with myself for killing a thousand bears/whales/dogs/cats to save the life of one other single life form. I might consider it, but... really? regardless of what kind of life the person led? Even if it was a murderer and a child molesterer (sp?) who had no respect for anyone?
But of course, everyone is different, and we all have opinions. I should probably stop being off topic now.