Free choice and moral responsibility towards animals
Hello.
When we talk about morality in a materialistic world, the following argument arises – why would harming a person matter, if it is nothing more than a block of atoms? What is the difference between it and a log?
In contrast, in a dualistic world, we attribute to man a part of the physical that gives him superiority over other atomic blocks. Hence the basis of humanism, in fact. At least in my view.
So, I wanted to ask your position on the issue of man’s obligation towards animals. I know your opinion on veganism, as well as the great suffering in the animal food industry. So my question is: Why? What is the justification for morality towards other animals?
Perhaps morality itself, in your opinion, is not derived from the dualistic issue but from God? That is, in a world without God and objective moral values, even harming a person (who has a soul) would have no importance?
I hope I was clear enough.
thanks,
T
There is no obligation of man to animals, because they have no rights. But because they suffer, we have an obligation not to cause suffering. It is our obligation, not their right.
Therefore, I also do not accept the claim that there is no obligation not to cause suffering to a block of atoms, unless the cause itself is also a block of atoms, and then there are no moral obligations on it.
Indeed, in my opinion, without God there is no moral obligation. See here on the website in the fourth notebook, Ch.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
