Morals are a purely human construction (animals don understand morals); doesn that mean it is not rational to apply our morality to animals?
The fallaciousness of this argument can be easily demonstrated by making a simple substitution: Infants and young children don’t understand morals, doesn’t that mean it is not rational to apply our morality to them? Of course not. We refrain from harming infants and children for the same reasons that we do so for adults. That they are incapable of conceptualizing a system of morals and its benefits is irrelevant. The relevant distinction is formalized in the concept of “moral agents” versus “moral patients”. A moral agent is an individual possessing the sophisticated conceptual ability to bring moral principles to bear in deciding what to do, and having made such a decision, having the free will to choose to act that way. By virtue of these abilities, it is fair to hold moral agents accountable for their acts. The paradigmatic moral agent is the normal adult human being. Moral patients, in contrast, lack the capacities of moral agents and thus cannot fairly be held accountable for thei
Related Questions
- Morals are a purely human construction (animals don understand morals); doesn that mean it is not rational to apply our morality to animals?
- How could an AI build a computer model of human morality, when human morals contradict each other, even within individuals?
- If Human communication is so much more complex than Animal communication, why can’t humans understand animals?
