In my opinion, what distinguishes human animals from non-human animals is moral stature. In Chapter 1 of The Animal Ethics Reader, author Tom Regan argues that non-human animals are “moral patients”, which Regan describes as beings which “lack the prerequisites that would enable them to control their own behavior in ways that would make them morally accountable for what they do”. Regan claims that “moral agents” (aka human animals) are more complex and possess a wider range of sophisticated abilities which allow them to make conscious moral decisions. Simply put, human animals are capable of recognizing wrong from right, and are able to choose between right and wrong in a conscious, well-processed and well thought-out manner.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I disagree with the statement that the distinguishing factor between human animals and non-human animals is moral stature. After reading several essays in the Animal Ethics Reader, I have noticed that there is more to non-human animals than I had thought previously. I understand Regan's views of what moral patients and moral agents are, however, I do not believe that all non-human animals are moral patients. Many non-human animals have sophisticated abilities and show behaviors similar to humans animals, which indicates that they have morals. Although I do not completely agree with Regan's argument, I can see how it could be very plausible and I will continue to keep an open mind on the subject.
Post a Comment