Morality and Other Animals: Moral Agents and Moral Patients

Summary

The script explores the notion that only humans can be moral agents, questioning if this perspective misleads us in moral issues like environmental ethics and animal rights. It challenges the idea that morality is solely a human concern by discussing the distinction between moral agents and moral patients, suggesting that even those who aren't moral agents, such as newborns or the severely mentally disabled, are still deserving of moral consideration.

Takeaways

• 🧠 The notion that 'you are a human, so act like one' implies that humans should act in a certain moral way, but it might mislead us about moral issues beyond human behavior.
• 🐱 The idea that only humans can be moral agents might lead to the misconception that morality is only a human concern, ignoring the ethical treatment of animals and the environment.
• 🌱 Moral considerations are not limited to moral agents; they should also extend to moral patients, those who are affected by moral actions but may not be capable of moral agency themselves.
• 👶 Even humans who lack the capabilities to be moral agents, such as newborns or those with severe mental disabilities, are still considered morally relevant and deserving of ethical consideration.
• 🐕 The fact that animals are not moral agents does not mean that discussions about animal rights or environmental ethics are misguided; they are moral patients whose interests should be considered.
• 🤔 The script challenges the anthropocentric view that only humans matter morally, suggesting that the circle of moral patients could be much broader.
• 🤝 The distinction between moral agents (those who can act morally) and moral patients (those who are affected by moral actions) is crucial for understanding ethical discussions about non-human entities.
• 🌳 Different theories propose varying criteria for what makes a moral patient, including species membership, mental abilities, capacity to suffer, or even inanimate objects like rivers or mountains.
• 📚 The script suggests that further discussion is needed to determine the criteria for moral patients and the extent of the moral circle.
• 🌐 The script emphasizes that human moral responsibilities extend beyond other humans to include all moral patients, regardless of their capacity for moral agency.

Q & A

What is the main idea discussed in the transcript?

The transcript discusses the potential misunderstanding that only humans can be moral agents, and how this could mislead our understanding of moral issues, such as environmental ethics and animal rights.

Why might the expression 'you are a human, so act like one' be misleading?

This expression might be misleading because it could imply that only humans have moral responsibilities, ignoring the fact that we have moral duties towards non-human entities such as animals or the environment.

What is the difference between a moral agent and a moral patient?

A moral agent is someone capable of making moral decisions and being accountable for their actions. A moral patient, on the other hand, is someone whose interests moral agents should consider, even if they themselves cannot make moral decisions.

Why does the transcript argue that newborns and severely mentally disabled individuals are not moral agents?

The transcript suggests that newborns and individuals with severe mental disabilities lack the necessary physical or mental capabilities to be considered moral agents, such as reasoning or decision-making abilities.

How does the transcript challenge the idea that morality is only a human concern?

The transcript argues that even though animals may not be moral agents, they can still be moral patients, and thus, discussions about animal rights and environmental ethics are not mistakes but are essential for moral consideration.

What is the significance of distinguishing between moral agents and moral patients?

This distinction is significant because it clarifies that moral duties are not only towards those who can act morally (agents) but also towards those who cannot (patients), such as the environment or non-human animals.

Why does the transcript consider the idea that ethics is only for humans problematic?

The transcript sees this idea as problematic because it overlooks the moral relevance of entities that are not moral agents but are still moral patients, such as animals and the environment.

What are some examples of moral patients mentioned in the transcript?

Examples of moral patients mentioned include newborns, severely mentally disabled individuals, animals, and potentially even natural entities like roads or mountains.

What does the transcript suggest about our duties towards those who are not moral agents?

The transcript suggests that we still have duties towards those who are not moral agents, as evidenced by the fact that we consider how to treat newborns, those in comas, or those with severe amnesia.

How does the transcript address the confusion between moral agents and moral patients in discussions about animal rights?

The transcript addresses this confusion by emphasizing the need to distinguish between who has moral responsibilities (agents) and who is the subject of moral consideration (patients), clarifying that animals can be moral patients even if they are not moral agents.

What are some theories about who counts as a moral patient according to the transcript?

The transcript mentions several theories: one that moral patients must be human beings (anthropocentric view), another that they must have mental abilities, a third that the ability to suffer is sufficient, and a broader view that includes all life and even non-living entities.