From what I was able to deduce, Kelsey questioned the validity of punishing animals for committing "wrong" acts. She asked whether or not it was okay for us, as humans AND moral agents, to set the "going rate" for punishment of a particular animal.
I found the question and idea intriguing, because it puts into question Regan's notion that animals are "moral patients" while humans represent the "moral agents". I would tend to disagree with Regan and possibly with Kelsey, if the assertion is that animals have no sense of right and wrong, so we must define it for them. I personally think that the whole "moral agents .v. moral patients" argument is full of wholes, but I digress.
To answer Kelsey's question, I would say that yes, we humans must set moral standards for animals and apply them as we see fit. Does this mean that animals have no sense of right or wrong action? Not at all. In contrast, they might see something that is wrong to us as right to them. For example, a female dog has just had a litter of puppies. She plays a bit rough with them at times and carries them about in her mouth. Now, imagine there is a newborn baby in the same house as the new mother dog. How would the dog be able to differentiate between the way it treats its young and treating the baby? No doubt the humans would scold, if not remove entirely, the dog for such behavior that in its world is only normal.
So yes, I believe it is right to subscribe our moral guidance to animals. You could almost consider me an adherent to Donovan's theory of an equal playing field, with a few minor rules that change from game to game.
No comments:
Post a Comment