As someone who believes in the Natural Law principle that nonhuman animals are closer in moral value to objects than people (or perhaps not intrinsically valuable at all), I think that to love a dog as one would a child is the epitome of irrationality, and a serious error in judgement. To my mind, it's a perversion comparable to having parental love for a random rock.
There has to some bright line, of which we are currently unaware. Perhaps it's the mere fact that we're human and it's a brute fact that only human welfare matters. Or perhaps only we happen to possess value-giving nonphysical souls. I don't know. That property, let's name it “property X”, would fully explain human supremacism, and it's bound to exist.
What I do know is that caring for animals would wreck havoc to the entire project of morality. For if they matter, then insects matter. And if insects matter, then—given their gargantuan population and consequently the unfathomable scale of suffering they experience in the wild—nothing else does (comparatively).
I find the implication that morality is a de facto enterprise in reducing insect (or shrimp) suffering utterly detestable. So repulsive in fact that I reject the very assumptions about the value of nonhuman welfare that lead us there. And that is why, I don't believe nonhuman animals are worth caring for.
Caring about the morality of other species, no matter how different they are, takes nothing away from caring about humans. I've always gravitated toward animals, and some people (probably most people lol) gravitate toward other humans. As long as they're not choosing to cause animals harm, I see no need to ask them to care about animals as much I do.
We all are living beings and deserve to live without our lives being manipulated by others. That doesn't mean we should focus solely on the welfare of insects or shrimps, just because they outnumber humans--they're better left alone.
But I know there's more than just animated muscle beneath my dog's fur. If I make a loud sound near her, she cowers and runs away. Once I accidentally dropped a book on her and she wouldn't come near me the rest of the day. She shows this same reaction when I get out towels for her baths, but she races toward the ocean and jumps into the waves when we take walks on the beach.
I choose not to focus on all the ways we're different but on our similarities. We are both alive at the same time on this beautiful planet, cohabitating with trillions of other lives. I think that's worth protecting.
If we see only what divides us, then why not turn that against our own species? Are humans who are incapable of taking care of themselves morally worthy? Can I ask, have you ever had a relationship with a (nonhuman) animal? Have you given a dog a treat or stroked a cat's back? Have you hit them or yelled at them? Is there anything about the animals you've known that's brought about this belief that they are morally irrelevant?
As someone who believes in the Natural Law principle that nonhuman animals are closer in moral value to objects than people (or perhaps not intrinsically valuable at all), I think that to love a dog as one would a child is the epitome of irrationality, and a serious error in judgement. To my mind, it's a perversion comparable to having parental love for a random rock.
Humans are animals too. What's so different between us that we can't care for members of other species?
There has to some bright line, of which we are currently unaware. Perhaps it's the mere fact that we're human and it's a brute fact that only human welfare matters. Or perhaps only we happen to possess value-giving nonphysical souls. I don't know. That property, let's name it “property X”, would fully explain human supremacism, and it's bound to exist.
What I do know is that caring for animals would wreck havoc to the entire project of morality. For if they matter, then insects matter. And if insects matter, then—given their gargantuan population and consequently the unfathomable scale of suffering they experience in the wild—nothing else does (comparatively).
I find the implication that morality is a de facto enterprise in reducing insect (or shrimp) suffering utterly detestable. So repulsive in fact that I reject the very assumptions about the value of nonhuman welfare that lead us there. And that is why, I don't believe nonhuman animals are worth caring for.
Caring about the morality of other species, no matter how different they are, takes nothing away from caring about humans. I've always gravitated toward animals, and some people (probably most people lol) gravitate toward other humans. As long as they're not choosing to cause animals harm, I see no need to ask them to care about animals as much I do.
We all are living beings and deserve to live without our lives being manipulated by others. That doesn't mean we should focus solely on the welfare of insects or shrimps, just because they outnumber humans--they're better left alone.
But I know there's more than just animated muscle beneath my dog's fur. If I make a loud sound near her, she cowers and runs away. Once I accidentally dropped a book on her and she wouldn't come near me the rest of the day. She shows this same reaction when I get out towels for her baths, but she races toward the ocean and jumps into the waves when we take walks on the beach.
I choose not to focus on all the ways we're different but on our similarities. We are both alive at the same time on this beautiful planet, cohabitating with trillions of other lives. I think that's worth protecting.
If we see only what divides us, then why not turn that against our own species? Are humans who are incapable of taking care of themselves morally worthy? Can I ask, have you ever had a relationship with a (nonhuman) animal? Have you given a dog a treat or stroked a cat's back? Have you hit them or yelled at them? Is there anything about the animals you've known that's brought about this belief that they are morally irrelevant?