![]() ![]() Is there a way to compare the suffering of a wild mouse to that of a lab mouse? It seems to me that wild mice must suffer greatly from ticks and mites and other biting insects. Rejecting the moral responsibility that results from our cognitive abilities, as proposed by animal rights activists, would be wrong. Rejecting our ability to confront suffering is to reject our human condition. In contrast, while it is true that birds fly, dolphins use sonar and mice have a terrific sense of smell, none of these abilities allow them to battle suffering. These developments have saved billions lives, both human and non-human, and eliminated much suffering. Humans have relied on our science to develop vaccines, screening tests and diagnostic devices, therapies and cures for many diseases. It is the fact that our cognitive skills give rise to the scientific edifices of mathematics, physics and life sciences, which allows us, humans, to combat suffering in the world. There is a second important way in human intelligence becomes morally relevant. Human cognitive abilities enable us to suffer in ways no other animals find possible. And because such suffering is enabled to beings with the cognitive abilities that allow them to pose such questions, one must conclude that human cognitive abilities are morally relevant too. Thus, if we agree that suffering is morally relevant, the type of suffering this mother experiences must count too. ![]() It is her cognitive abilities that allow her to suffer in ways other animals cannot. Yet, it seems obvious that not all species possess these attributes in equal degrees.Ī human mother that is contemplating death due to cancer, will suffer beyond her physical pain when thinking that her children will grow up without a her, that she will never see them marry or have children of their own, that she will leave her spouse alone to take care of the family. It goes beyond the accepted definition of “sentience”. ![]() Having preferences, desires, beliefs, interests and acting purposely to achieve them is to attribute a living being with mental states that go beyond the mere ability to feel and perceive things. A plant alive but has no sort of mind that prefers, desires, or wants anything. A rock is not sentient it does not have any sort of mind that prefers, desires, or wants anything. sentience is a necessary as well as sufficient characteristic for a being to have interests (preferences, desires, or wants) in the first place. Francione it clearly means something more: ![]() Sentience, according to the dictionary, is the “ ability to feel and perceive things.” However, to Prof. “ cognitive characteristics beyond sentience are morally irrelevant being “smart” may matter for some purposes, such as whether we give someone a scholarship, but it is completely irrelevant to whether we use someone as a forced organ donor, as a non-consenting subject in a biomedical experiment.” In what way does human intelligence makes us different from other living beings in any morally relevant way?Īs an example, one of these philosophers, Prof. Birds can fly unassisted, dolphins use sonar, and mice have an exquisite sense of smell. The animal rights philosopher asks - Why does it matter if humans can compose a violin concerto or prove complex mathematical theorems? After all, animals also have unique abilities that no human possess. In their view, we owe the same moral consideration to all sentient living beings, which must include the same basic rights to life and freedom. Animal rights proponents often assert that “sentience” is the only morally relevant characteristic. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |