Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Human/Non-Human Animals
According to the readings we have done from the "Animal Ethics Reader," there is a very clear distinction between human animals and non-human animals. What distinguishes human animals from non-human animals would be the idea that human animals have a moral code and can commit right and wrong actions, where as non-human animals may have the same type of function in the world, but yet lack the ability to do right or wrong actions because they do not have the consciousness to control what they do. Any animal that has that consciousness and can be held responsible for their actions can be considered a human animal, because like them most humans are responsible for their actions unless they are infants or mentally incapable people, and therefore they are taken care of by other humans. With that being said, because they are mentally not capable of taking care of themselves or being held accountable for their actions, what does that make all household pets, who are taken care of by people? Just a thought.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I disagree with the statement “There is a very clear distinction between human animals and non-human animals”. When you think about it there truly is not a clear distinction at all. When I read Regan’s article his opinion appeared to be very vague and too general when he talks about the differences between humans and non-human animals. In Cavalieri’s article he mentions “If one claims that merely biological characteristics like race and sex cannot in which criteria imported from other domains cannot be directly relevant, how can one attribute a role to another merely biological characteristic such as species?” With that being said one cannot claim there is a very clear distinction because in actuality humans and non-humans animals are difficult to tell apart than one might think.
Post a Comment