What rights should animals have and why?
If one could save either a human child or 10 chimpanzees from a burning building which should one save?
Would the person who saved the chimps rather than the human have done something morally wrong?
THE MORAL STATUS OF ANIMALS
Moderator: Moderators
-
Furrowed Brow
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 3720
- Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:29 am
- Location: Here
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
Post #11
Whilst species survival may explain the choice, I don’t think it throws much light on morality. If say there is someone who chooses chimps over human child do they act morally? Whilts it is possible to answer no species survival seems more like a pragmatic rule. Of course that might be all morality really is.Religulous wrote: …the "survival of one's species" kicks in and we do what is necessary to prevail.
David E wrote: Alternate scenario: what if it was an intelligent alien child or a human adult?
It will likely depend on how much I like the child and how much I like the adult, but probably I’d go for the child so long as it was not like the predator or anything. If the child was Vulcan species survival does not really come into it. If it was one human child v ten Vulcan children it would have to be the 10 Vulcans. But if it was my child v 10 Vulcans then my child first.
Perhaps other will feel different but it is interesting that it is not simple genetic similarity that is the motivating factor.
Post #12
This effectively puts the decision line at sentience/intelligence.David E wrote:There's no disputing that we almost all have that same instinctive response.
What I'm interested in is whether we can give a good argument for it. One that doesn't amount to nothing more than a prejudice in favor of one's own kind---especially given how our modern moral system is so much focused on overcoming our natural in-group biases.
Alternate scenario: what if it was an intelligent alien child or a human adult?
What about an intelligent robot vs a human?
Would that be immoral?
Post #13
This effectively puts the decision line at sentience/intelligence.
Would that be immoral?
Whether sentience should be a deciding factor is one of the issues the questions are intended to probe.
It seems to me that our actual moral intuitions on this subject are a pretty inconsistent hodge podge.
We would tend to save a human over a dog. And as a rationale we say sapient being's should be valued above nonsapient beings.
But a smart dog is closer to sapience than many humans with brain damage or mental disabilities---but most wouldn't save the dog over the human.
What we have aren't coherent ethical principles at work but at least 3 (and maybe more) instinctive drives that can and do contradict one another:
1. in-group identification (which tends to promote the well-being of those most closely related to us genetically---one's family over someone elses, one's race over another, etc. Notice that the last is a drive we work hard in this society to oppose).
2. protectiveness toward the young (which can cross over to other species and conflict with 1).
3. identification with those like us (similar to and probably emerging from 1 but not the same as it; our valuing of intelligent life over nonintelligent is an example; we'd probably also tend to, all else being equal, value intelligent aliens that were more similar in appearance to human over ones that looked like a jellyfish).
The interesting thing is that 1 and 3 are also the basis of prejudice. Something that makes me very uncomfortable with having them as the basis of a moral judgment---I suppose that's why we tend to look for "objective" reasons which seem to be little more than after the fact rationalizations when it comes to these sorts of moral issues.
Can anyone think of anything else that should be on the list?
Would that be immoral?
Whether sentience should be a deciding factor is one of the issues the questions are intended to probe.
It seems to me that our actual moral intuitions on this subject are a pretty inconsistent hodge podge.
We would tend to save a human over a dog. And as a rationale we say sapient being's should be valued above nonsapient beings.
But a smart dog is closer to sapience than many humans with brain damage or mental disabilities---but most wouldn't save the dog over the human.
What we have aren't coherent ethical principles at work but at least 3 (and maybe more) instinctive drives that can and do contradict one another:
1. in-group identification (which tends to promote the well-being of those most closely related to us genetically---one's family over someone elses, one's race over another, etc. Notice that the last is a drive we work hard in this society to oppose).
2. protectiveness toward the young (which can cross over to other species and conflict with 1).
3. identification with those like us (similar to and probably emerging from 1 but not the same as it; our valuing of intelligent life over nonintelligent is an example; we'd probably also tend to, all else being equal, value intelligent aliens that were more similar in appearance to human over ones that looked like a jellyfish).
The interesting thing is that 1 and 3 are also the basis of prejudice. Something that makes me very uncomfortable with having them as the basis of a moral judgment---I suppose that's why we tend to look for "objective" reasons which seem to be little more than after the fact rationalizations when it comes to these sorts of moral issues.
Can anyone think of anything else that should be on the list?
Post #14
So in shorter terms,David E wrote:This effectively puts the decision line at sentience/intelligence.
Would that be immoral?
Whether sentience should be a deciding factor is one of the issues the questions are intended to probe.
It seems to me that our actual moral intuitions on this subject are a pretty inconsistent hodge podge.
We would tend to save a human over a dog. And as a rationale we say sapient being's should be valued above nonsapient beings.
But a smart dog is closer to sapience than many humans with brain damage or mental disabilities---but most wouldn't save the dog over the human.
What we have aren't coherent ethical principles at work but at least 3 (and maybe more) instinctive drives that can and do contradict one another:
1. in-group identification (which tends to promote the well-being of those most closely related to us genetically---one's family over someone elses, one's race over another, etc. Notice that the last is a drive we work hard in this society to oppose).
2. protectiveness toward the young (which can cross over to other species and conflict with 1).
3. identification with those like us (similar to and probably emerging from 1 but not the same as it; our valuing of intelligent life over nonintelligent is an example; we'd probably also tend to, all else being equal, value intelligent aliens that were more similar in appearance to human over ones that looked like a jellyfish).
The interesting thing is that 1 and 3 are also the basis of prejudice. Something that makes me very uncomfortable with having them as the basis of a moral judgment---I suppose that's why we tend to look for "objective" reasons which seem to be little more than after the fact rationalizations when it comes to these sorts of moral issues.
Can anyone think of anything else that should be on the list?
Do we choose a life over another on the basis of species, sapience, intelligence or sentience?
Are any of these items prejudicial and therefore should be excluded?
On another note, if we declare animals to have equivalent moral status as humans, will they reciprocate that position and should that be a factor to consider?
Post #15
On another note, if we declare animals to have equivalent moral status as humans, will they reciprocate that position and should that be a factor to consider?
Obviously they can't. But we don't demand that of human toddlers or the mentally handicapped so it would involve an inconsistency to factor it in to how we treat animals.
Are any of these items prejudicial and therefore should be excluded?
We should not leave unexamined the possibility that being prejudicial isn't always wrong.
I'd save my own child from a burning building over anyone else's---that's prejudicial but I'm not inclined to concede that its wrong.
On another note, if we declare animals to have equivalent moral status as humans
the sense in which I'd say animals (many of them, at least) have equivalent moral status is that they probably suffer as much as a human does when, for example, you test a product by spraying it in the eyes.
And this seems to me the primary consideration in regard to how we should approach the question of animal suffering.
But I wouldn't say that it follows from this that we necessarily should be vegetarians (though I do think it the most ethically sound position---not that I am one myself).
Obviously they can't. But we don't demand that of human toddlers or the mentally handicapped so it would involve an inconsistency to factor it in to how we treat animals.
Are any of these items prejudicial and therefore should be excluded?
We should not leave unexamined the possibility that being prejudicial isn't always wrong.
I'd save my own child from a burning building over anyone else's---that's prejudicial but I'm not inclined to concede that its wrong.
On another note, if we declare animals to have equivalent moral status as humans
the sense in which I'd say animals (many of them, at least) have equivalent moral status is that they probably suffer as much as a human does when, for example, you test a product by spraying it in the eyes.
And this seems to me the primary consideration in regard to how we should approach the question of animal suffering.
But I wouldn't say that it follows from this that we necessarily should be vegetarians (though I do think it the most ethically sound position---not that I am one myself).
-
Tuddrussell
- Student
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:12 am
- Location: Western Washington
Post #16
Personally I would save the chimps, the way I figure it is that one human child is equivalent to three ape children. If it came down top saving three apes, or one child I would save the child, but any more than five apes is far too much death to bear on my shoulders.
I would save a human over an intelligent robot, because well.. A robot is a lot more likely to survive a house fire.
I would save an alien baby over an adult human, because of the simple yet elegant rule of children first, also I wouldn't want the wrath of an alien empire advanced enough for major space travel upon me...
Back to the ape/human dilemma, A human is more valuable than an ape, but an ape is far less likely to be evil, but also far less likely to be helpful to humanity as a whole, but after all the math has been done an ape is only slightly lesser than a human, and my answer reflected that.
If I had to choose between one of my pets, and a stranger... I would choose the pet every time, unless the pet was old, or the human was young, because my pets are a part of my family, admittedly not a highly ranked member, but family none the less, and they always come first.
I would save a human over an intelligent robot, because well.. A robot is a lot more likely to survive a house fire.
I would save an alien baby over an adult human, because of the simple yet elegant rule of children first, also I wouldn't want the wrath of an alien empire advanced enough for major space travel upon me...
Back to the ape/human dilemma, A human is more valuable than an ape, but an ape is far less likely to be evil, but also far less likely to be helpful to humanity as a whole, but after all the math has been done an ape is only slightly lesser than a human, and my answer reflected that.
If I had to choose between one of my pets, and a stranger... I would choose the pet every time, unless the pet was old, or the human was young, because my pets are a part of my family, admittedly not a highly ranked member, but family none the less, and they always come first.
-
TheCatholic
Post #17
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
Respect for the integrity of creation
2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity. Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man's dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.
2416 Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.
2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.
2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.
source:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a7.htm
Respect for the integrity of creation
2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity. Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man's dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.
2416 Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.
2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.
2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.
source:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a7.htm
