Complex issue, I can't find a simple or encompassing solution - will there need to be multiple scales or degrees of application of moral status, even after designating moral patient status to nonhuman animals?
We know there are numerous cultures/societies living in extreme environments whose existence is dependent on the consumption of nonhuman animals. Some of these people are citizens of the United States, others are citizens of other Western societies.
If the Western world assigns moral patient status to nonhuman animals, how would they enforce the protection of these moral patients in their own countries? Would it be through legislation? Would there be exemptions for those who live in environments that are climatically/environmentally insufficient or prohibitive for the production of alternative food sources? How do we judge the needs of those whose cultural identity is tied to consumption of animal flesh against the need to protect those animals to whom we have assigned moral patiency?
Given ease of global communication and travel, if "civilized" Western cultures assign high moral status to nonhuman animals - what would the protocol be when intersecting with "primitive" cultures - who do not assign similar moral patient status to these nonhuman animals?
If we assign moral patiency to all animals equally, predators and prey species alike - and we come across a predator "attacking" its natural prey - are we morally obligated to intervene on behalf of the "weaker" prey species - knowing that our action could accelerate the death of the predator species?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
If both parties to natural predation are moral patients, then the terms "right" and "wrong" do not apply. Furthermore, saving the sheep from the wolf deprives the wolf of its basic needs.
Collections of (isolated) humans still wed to meat-eating may be justified in continuing that practice, so long as no viable alternatives are available.
I think I agree with you. The option of relocating these isolated cultures could exist as a physical possibility - as in the forced relocation of native American peoples onto reservation - with devastating consequences to their culture and their population. So, when you speak of no viable alternatives being available, do you mean to that these cultures would be able to continue their isolated and meat-dependent existence if they so choose.
It seems to me that these presents another moral dilemna - The right of a people to maintain an isolated culture identity if that is what they desire
versus the right of animals to exist without human predation.
If all human animals could communicate effectively with all other nonhuman animals and plants, could that then be a path to resolving the morality of essential survival?
Post a Comment