Animals are sentient meat, too.
Some seem quite intelligent.
How smart do you have to be to be "sapient"?
Christians say humans have free will, hence are moral subjects, and hence are Hell-worthy; but animals don't and so aren't.
Some people who reject any radical difference between man and other animals such as those posited by Christians, Cartesians, or some libertarians insist animals, like humans, have rights, though few spokesmen for that view say they have duties.
Most uneducated people say dogs, at least, feel guilty and know when they have done wrong - which would seem to belie the idea that they cannot have duties.
And if they feel guilt when they cross humans what about when they cross others in the social order of the pack?
All the same, the taboo theory of morals would seem to make it impossible to ascribe moral beliefs to animals.
On that view, morality is essentially befuddlement, confusion, and error about the meaningfulness of certain words in certain uses, and for that one must be capable of language, oneself.
But it is an easy mistake to make.
On the same view, morality, after all, is just a feature of the coercion, intimidation, and violence that characterize not only human but animal societies and the society that includes domestic animals and men, resting on not too dissimilar instincts, sentiments, and even feelings such as guilt.
But Aristotle was right to insist "justice" is a feature of social life only for animals that can talk.
No comments:
Post a Comment