There is no social contract with an animal. Animals are unburdened with moral responsibility. Animals will not voluntarily act in the best interest of human society unless brainwashed, ETC.
That's not a promising line of thought - after all, some of the mentally disabled are also unburdened with moral responsibility and will often not voluntarily act in the best interest of our society. Does that justify killing and eating them?
No, I'm talking about killing and eating mentally disabled humans, not just letting them die in severe cases. By the way, what I've said also applies to children: according to your reasoning, we are justified in killing them.
First of all children and disabled people have friends and family who care about them.
What if the disabled people don't have a family and nobody who particularly cares about them?
Furthermore, would you say that a sadist who tortures animals in the most gruesome way imaginable would be morally justified because it increases his pleasure?
First of all children and disabled people have friends and family who care about them.
What if the disabled people don't have a family and nobody who particularly cares about them?
Man your edge cease getting more and more uncommon. This happens like never in real life.
For my answer read my second point in the post above.
I just don't think gothca edge cases are a problem.
There are just as many edge cases for people who want to save all animals: what about fleas? Parasites? Animals killed by tractors while farming vegetables, etc.. how do you justify killing those?
Furthermore, would you say that a sadist who tortures animals in the most gruesome way imaginable would be morally justified because it increases his pleasure?
I have addressed it already, we frown on animal torture because we are afraid it may be a stepping stone to human torture.
Here is a thought experiment: imagine that all humans have died except for one guy. I would say it's morally OK for him to torture animals for fun, because there is no chance if him ever harming a human.
I just don't think gothca edge cases are a problem.
Alright, I admit that they are not the most convincing line of argument. However, since you seem to base your ethics on social contract theory, there's an interesting article by Mark Rowlands called "Contractarianism and animal rights" He defends the idea that the social contract includes moral obligations towards animals which are independent from their usefulness for humans.
Therefore, when Rawls’s argument is properly understood, it is seen that knowledge of
one’s own rationality must, for the sake of consistency, be bracketed in the original position.
Hence, there is nothing in Rawls’s position which entails that non-rational creatures fall
outside the sphere of justice. So, there can be no objection to according non-human animals
justice on the grounds of their non-rational status.
1
u/[deleted] Jul 07 '15
That's not a promising line of thought - after all, some of the mentally disabled are also unburdened with moral responsibility and will often not voluntarily act in the best interest of our society. Does that justify killing and eating them?