(July 29, 2019 at 11:12 am)Shell B Wrote:(July 29, 2019 at 10:58 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: It certainly seems to be. Animals may have affinity and revulsions, but do the adopt and circulate rules of right and wrong?
Importance is value judgement without a standard.
We’ve had morals during all the time when inflicting pain and suffering on weaker creatures were not prohibited. So having morals were clearly not incompatible with inflicting pain and suffering on weaker creatures. What you would like to do is to adjust morality until such is generally prohibited. What, besides momentary impulse, would making this adjustment acceptable to enough people, and what would make this acceptability last?
There have always, in civilized society, been standards by which animals are treated. We’ve had pets for as long as we know. There have always been morals regarding animals. What I’d like to see is less survival of the cutest and less abuse of convenience.
Which has always been a hypocrisy given how we treat animals that were not considered pets. It becomes even more of a hypocrisy when we insist others people according some animals particular consideration we mandated merely because we adopted some animals as pets.
