I'm not going to lie, I'm pretty proud of this example =]
Putting an animal "down"- how is this not a direct duty to the animal itself? How does the human stand to gain by this action? Don't we even commonly describe it as "putting the animal out of its misery" which interestingly brings up the notion that animals do suffer and feel pain.
kudos
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is a good example to look at, and I think we commonly see this situation as one in which our empathy for animals dictates our actions, regardless of any concern for ourselves. On the the other hand, one might argue that even though euthanizaing an animal may confer no direct or tangible benefit to humanity, it is our moral duty not to be indifferent to pain (for the sake of ourselves and other human beings), and hence when we see pain in animals that is analogous to pain as we experience it, it is our duty to alleviate that pain or else we risk becoming cruel people. The fact that we are OK with killing an animal in extreme pain (even when it might possible to save its life) where such a thing would be unacceptable for a fellow human indicates that it is the pain itself we are concerned with rather than the animal itself as a subject. Or that seems like the Kantian human-centric reply to me.
ReplyDeletewhere is the like button
ReplyDelete