This link has been bookmarked by 1 people . It was first bookmarked on 28 Jul 2008, by Wildcat2030 wildcat.
We must consider Hauser’s argument that animals are only moral patients, since this provides the basis for his thesis that they are not self-aware. His reasons that animals are not moral agents are that they: (a) do not have empathy, being not self-aware; (b) cannot inhibit themselves, being incapable of conceptual change; (c) do not consider the beliefs and desires of others; (d) do not understand how their actions impact others, which requires being able to attribute mental states to others; (e) do not understand duty and responsibility; and (f) do not understand norms of emotions and actions in their societies – further, they have no concept of right or wrong. He offers only a limited acknowledgement of animal consciousness.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
What is ironic is that Hauser began by attempting to understand animals in terms of their own environments. The remarkable thing about Hauser’s list, however, is that it measures animals against human standards. Not only is his account anthropocentric; it is also highly implausible for evolutionary reasons. If there has been one big message from Darwin it is that we are part of nature.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
As is well known, Darwin and others showed us that humans are animals, differentiated only by species membership and not ontologically different from others. We all sit on a consciousness continuum, though some differences are qualitative. Since all organisms evolved to confront problems in their environments, it would be at least reasonable to think that we all did so in similar ways, and to different levels of sophistication.
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.