hey i have a qustion concerning human beings. i was curious what eveyone thought. what is about humans that makes us think we are morally responsible? Why don't animals have moral rights? i know this is an odd question, but i thought i'd ask.

I personally believe in the "humane" treatment of all living creatures. Although I am not a vegetarian I believe that the food chain, anthropologic development and human physiology require humans to be meat eaters. We are the only living creature that has the ability to reason, to know right from wrong; there is an actual physical difference between the make up of a human brain and all other living creature�s brains. If you believe in theology, evolution or what ever, all animals lack the physical ability to reason and therefore do not have a moral conscience themselves. I feel because we all share this planet humans are responsible for owning the conscience of those who can not �speak� for them self. We must act in a manner that reflects a humane and moral (however you want to put it) way. Does this always happen, no? There are some horrible acts committed and humans are solely responsible for any immoral act done upon an animal not the other way around; animals act and react out of instinct only.

Just my thoughts, have a good one,
Jenny

From a "big picture" point of view, I think we have moral responsibility since we have the intelligence(and I use the term loosely) to make the largest impacts on the world. We don't live in harmony with nature but rather destroy it. So how does all this work out for us, obviously not so well. Guess our morals are not up to par with our abilities to destroy things. Isn't that human nature at it's best ?
Then of course it applies just the same to all the smaller things in our individual lives. How some parents neglect their children, how we treat our neighbors and so and so on. It seems that as the years keep rolling by that there is evidence of a declining morale for us, and it truly is a shame.
I guess animals are just too much in tune with the natural flow to need morals. They have their instinct if nothing else to guide them, simple and very functional. They live by nature's rules without bending or breaking them as we do.
So now who is the smartest creatures on the planet?

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth. Genesis 1:26

This is really interesting. jmsajs, I really like what you had to say.

Recently a co worker was defending homosexuals by saying there are gay penguins so that it is a natural born instinct. And I did look up the story about the gay penguins (sounds unusual but true). I don't want to start war here. But as a bible believer I know a homosexual life style does not honor the word of God. She says it is not written any where in the bible but yes it is. And Kimmie I like what you posted also. I just wish I would have memorized that so I could have told her at the time. I'll have it for next time. But the way she talked almost sounded as if humans are equal to animals. And I am sorry if I offended anyone. I do not hate gay people, and I would still treat them with respect.

Hi Schlom,

Isn�t it time you gave us your view of the subject ? and what you�re driving at !

Here is my try:

I looked up the words in the dictionary (as usual).
�Moral�: principles of right and wrong conduct, also, virtuous in sexual matters , synonyms: ethics, standards
Then you go to �ethics�: the branch of philosophy dealing with right and wrong of certain actions and with good and bad of such actions
And �standard�: anything serving as a rule for making judgements or as a basis for comparison

And going back to your questions:

What is [it] about humans that makes us think we are morally responsible? Why don't animals have moral rights?

It all goes back, to the social rules we have agreed, as human beings.
We are a (more or less) functioning social entity and are to comply with the rules of the society we are living in.
The rules can be explicit: the law, or partly implicit: courtesy, and completely implicit: what is �felt� as right or wrong (=morals !).
There are rules concerning weaker elements of our society (children, old people, people with disabilities), and we also have rules concerning other species, e.g.animals.

So, of course animals have moral rights, in the sense that it is not morally acceptable to torture an animal, and killing them is acceptable within certain regulations.

The same applies to humans ! e.g. the death penalty.

Animals have their own rules. They have their set ways to deal with each other (especially the animals that live in groups), or with other species, humans or other animals. Those rules have been created (similarly as for us humans), as a result of past experiences.
I would put �instinct� under the very rough same category, in the sense that it is a �standard� that has become genetically implanted, over many generations.
One thing they don�t have is the memory (except Orcas I suppose  ), in the sense that your dog won�t punish you for blowing in his ear a month after it happened. He will bite you now, or he won�t .

In that sense animals are not morally responsible, because responsibility assumes the ability to remember.
Or, you can�t ask a small child to apologize for something he did in the past (more than 5-10 minutes ago) , it doesn�t make sense to punish him for anything that happened more than 5 minutes before (same for dogs, by the way).
OK, yes, even animals or small children can be considered morally responsible, for that very short laps of time after the act.
For children that time becomes longer as they grow.
That is the hard part of becoming an adult. Becoming responsible, long term responsible, for your acts.
We can also put it this way:
EVEN CHILDREN BECOME HUMANS.
;-)

I agree with most of your responses. I just wanted to say that a right is something you have priviledge to. For an animal, well they just live day to day and try to survive. They are not aware that they are supposed to be treated any certain way... and us humans are the ones who make up these rules. Morals are what you consciously choose to do.... Ex) sleeping around, abuse a child or an animal, lie, cheat, steal). An animal doesn't have the capability or intellect to make that a conscious choice. We do.

The bible, and what we learn from human to human, is guidance. (for some) I wouldn't say that wild animals don't have guidance from eachother. They learn how to survive from another animal or their parent, or from the pack.

Animals (pets) that live with us, well they are at a disadvantage, in that they have to learn from us...or figure out by instinct what works and what doesn't. It is not a conscious choice, it is survival.

Morals vary from person to person because of the form of guidance they were raised with but as we get to be an adult, we add or delete what we want because of the conscious choices we have.

I am probably not saying this all very well. My mind is really going here. I think you catch on to my point of view. Good topic.

I like the way you introduced the concept of the �free choice�.
Yes, that is probably the main difference between animals and humans, or even very young humans or mentally retarded humans versus �normal� (=average) humans.

Every time we break the rule (or do not break it) that is our conscient (= free) choice.

I want to tie this to the concept of memory, in the sense that we do have a database of possible responses for each and every situation in our brain (even the completely new ones fall in some category we have already). Our mind will process the information it has and come up with a choice. (Doesn�t that sound like my very first computer course, an input, a memory, a processor, an output).

Now, another example:

A father decides he cannot come and visit his child (that is living with the mother) at this point of time.
His free choice ?
HE doesn�t think so. He is tied into a net of different requirements from different parties (including himself of course, maybe other children, maybe another woman, money, time, work�), and his only choice at that time (he thinks and says) is not to come. The mother of course says it is his free choice, he can decide, it�s his free choice and he decided against them (the child and her).
That�s hard.
Definitely good breeding ground for conflict.

We often let ourselves be ruled by the strongest one of these factors (often work, money, time), and neglect the really important factors (long term important), that don�t have the same �lobby� (e.g. the child).

I know, I changed the subject�has nothing to do with morals, or does it ?

OK, let�s try this:

Moral obligations often get pushed in the background when others take the power. E.g. he decides that his moral obligation of keeping the appointment is secondary, compared to his financial obligation to pay his bills (well, that�s a moral obligation too, really, just a bigger leverage, because if the bill is not paid, the telephone is turned off, for example).

Therefore, moral obligations compete with one another.

Where is the higher moral responsibility ?

Is there a ranking of moral responsibilites ?

Can you tell I am bored today ?

Red,
You are really not changing the subject here.I disagree though about a father not coming to see his child because of his responsibilities and possible moral obligations elsewhere. Everyone chooses their obligations. In your scenerio he makes that conscious choice. It is still ultimately the father's moral obligation. It is his choice.

People in relationships either choose to support other people's decisions to take on their own moral obligations, or let them fail. I believe obligations are something that you yourself choose to put yourself into. For example...dating. You make the conscious choice to date, bringing another person into your life to care about, pushing this person into your children's life and this one choice may be, and feel, right for everyone at the time....but then things go bad and this one choice has affected all your other obligations. Still it is all done by choice of someone, affecting everyone around them.

Morals is about choice and about right and wrong. It's the combination of both that give it value and priority. You can or you can't. You do or you don't. It is the priority in which we list our obligations that we choose. It is the right or wrong choices that we make that puts it on a higher scale of moral...or value. (I will write more later I have to go to work).

This makes sense in my head... but I don't know if I am writing this correctly.

To continue my thoughts, I also want to add, when I said that you choose to date (and I'm just using dating as an example)The person also takes on the resposibility of helping you reach your obligations.(If they care about you). Here is a story:

A father is at a party for his girlfriends son (9yrs.old). He is very close to this boy, and has a daughter of his own (11yrs old) who he sees every other weekend. The father tells the boy goodbye and the boy hangs on the father and crys "I don't want you to leave" The girlfriend feels bad for her son but both adults tell the boy, My daughter wants to hang all over me too. I need to be there for her as well. The boy then looks to his mom for support of his own side.... the mother says yea he has to go. Even though he disappoints them both he has a moral obligation to be with his daughter. This has also taught the boy responsibility. The girlfriend supported the obligation. All worked out. The man made the choice.

I will write more....gotta go.

I'm back, sorry. Anyway, maybe we are off the topic of moral obligations to animals, but really not to far...see it doesn't matter what or who you are dealing with when it comes to morals and obligations. Its all about choice. This builds who you are, and how you act in life towards people, animals, objects.

Ex. Peeing on a brick wall. Right or wrong? Do it or don't do it? It is a choice whether it is a wall or an animal or a person.