I suppose the largest difference between we humans and the animals would be the lack of animals technology, and I use that term firmly. Humans have progressed steadily in the fields of science and technology, which ultimately increases our abilities to communicate. An animal in North America cannot contact an animal in South Africa.
Additionally, as humans, we typically tend to move away from nature while establishing new homes; whereas animals depend on their natural environment to find food and shelter. This being a result of our advanced level of thought.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This distinction is clearly not morally relevant to the status of non-human versus human animals. Although he is correct in saying that non-human animals cannot communicate to others of their ilk and do not demonstrate movement away from nature, the focus on the moral status of animals is not whether or not they have science. Most animals are not widely dispersed enough to need this attribute, nor does their survival necessitate it. As Singer says in his essay "The capacity for suffering... and/or enjoyment or happiness... is not just another characteristic like the capacity for language, or for higher mathematics... The capacity for suffering and enjoying things is a prerequisite for having interests at all" (Singer 37). Non-human animals do not need science to find happiness or feel pain, and therefore do not need it to have interests (in my opinion, neither do humans), so this distinction has little to no moral relevancy.
I feel as though this level of thinking is very wrong. Singer is a firm believer in making rules apply to everyone. This 'everyone' spoken of is not just for every type of animal but including humans in it as well. With this ideology Singer would state, "...this same argument gives us a reason for preferring to use human infants -orphans perhaps- or severely intellectually disabled humans." (Singer 38)
Post a Comment