Do animals have the same moral status capabilities as humans? This question was the foundation of the ongoing discussion in class. I thought it was interesting on how two people had two completely different views on the same incidents. For example, Betsy brought up how animals do have moral status because of the emotions they feel when their fellow companion passes away. Is it just longing for what was the "norm" for them or does it directly correspond with their moral behavior? I believe it is their intuition that helps the animals realize that something is missing and that something could possibly be wrong.
Another example Betsy used was the stories of dogs rescuing and saving their owners' lives. Is this affected by their moral status? Once again, I believe it is not. I believe it is more of an intution that helps the animals realize that something is wrong with their owners and that they must do something to save and protect their owners.
I came to these conclusions through the class discussing the levels of moral behavior: high moral moral behavior, medium moral behavior, and normal moral behavior. Yes I believe that animals do have a moral sense to an extent. I believe the only reason they have this is because of their surroundings. Their owners and other people around them help them realize what is right and what is wrong. They do not decipher this on their own. This is why I believe nonhumans only have the normal moral behavior letter. It does not come from their mind; rather, it comes from the minds that surround them.
Are trained service dogs the same way? Yes, I believe they are. I know that they are have more knowledge that shapes their moral behavior, but it is not knowledge from their brain. Rather, I believe it is knowledge that comes from their trainers. I believe that moral status is something a species is given rather than them being able to rise in the moral status hierachy. Yes, their moral status knowledge can improve but it does not change their status. Moral status is based on what we think is right and wrong from the beginning.
I look forward to discussing this more tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Jaclyn,
Enjoyed your take on class discussion and on Miller's article. I agree with much of your and the class' assessment re:capacity for moral agency in nonhuman animals. When younger, I believed nonhuman animals were morally superior to humans - because they did no evil. I was looking at the result of their natural animal behavior, not necessarily the cause of it - which I'm still not certain of.
I've never really pondered their capacity to act as moral agents in such depth before or had so many minds to share in the process of unraveling this mystery.
I have had so many experiences with animals, - one of the most prized traits in a service dog is its ability to think creatively and act indepent of its human partner. Excellent when their human is incapacitated or unable to physically assist dog in extricating itself or the team from some new physical dilemna. This ability to problem solve is not universal among dogs. I can see where it could be just a factor of the level of the inteligence of that particular dog, or it could be normal behavior for that breed, where that trait has been specifically bred for by humans. I can see where morality could have absolutely nothing to do with that trait.
Defining morality more narrowly has helped. Not feeling the need to defend the value of animals in relationship to humans also helps. I don't want degree of moral status to be a factor in how much we are allowed to value them. I am afraid that the consequences of their having less agency = less value = crueler existence.
Post a Comment