Human/Non-Human Animals

I think that the concept that most resonated with me was the idea of moral patients and moral agents as defined in Tom Regan's reading, The Case for Animal Rights. The concept that animals do indeed feel pain and pleasure, but do not have the skills needed to express these emotions is something that I find quite interesting. Regan says that "moral patients lack the prerequisites that would enable them to control their own behavior," this theory says that animals can not be held accountable for their actions because they do not comprehend what they are doing. If an animal attacks another animal (human or otherwise) they can not be held accountable for the actions because they can not grasp the full effects of the action. Humans can be held accountable and certainly are held to a degree of moral compass because they can fully understand the ramifications of any given action. I think that the ability to comprehend is the main and most defining difference between human and non-human animals. Animals are moral patients, whereas humans are moral agents.