Prompt 06

(Warren, 93, 5th paragraph (extends on page 93))

This paragraph addresses how equal moral rights can be extended to mentally incompetent people and infants.  I find that this paragraph was almost a direct rebuttal  to Regan's argument in which he asserts that because we have direct duties to young children and mentally retarded we cannot reject these same rights to animals (Regan, 84, 1st full paragraph).  It initially bothered me that Regan could make this assertion but I felt that on some level he was correct.  We feel a need to  protect people's rights who are not capable of feeling the full range of human emotions but at the same time we reject these same rights to an animal capable of feeling the same (and perhaps more) emotions.  However, Warren quickly defends infancy by saying that it is a conditions that we have all experienced or may experience at one time which is correct.  We also protect babies because we care for them because of our relationship to them.  I think that this same connection is applied to mentally impaired, we protect them because they have emotional connections to people and they cannot protect themselves.  I also like the connection in this paragraph drawn about pets and our care for them is not explicitly about them for their own sake but rather because it would hurt us to see an animal that we cared about in pain.

I also felt that the whole argument made by Warren just contains more logic than either of the arguments that we have read prior.  I can say this because it answered many of the questions that I had felt before where I had problems with Singer and Regan because they appeared to overlook a lot of biological concerns that I had.  One being the line that Regan creates about sentient fully mature mammals.  While yes these are pertinent case (and Regan does not assert that these are the only cases), but he asserts that there is a sharp line because he argues that all animals possess equal inherent value.  I think that as you evaluate his idea with more and more examples it becomes harder and harder to assert that all of these organisms have the same inherent value.  I like then this idea that we should need to sweep all walkways before we walk on them and not swat at mosquitos.  By Regan's assertion of benefit of the doubt and of the creatures that we are unsure about their 'subjet-of-a-life' criteria we must assume that they are, and thus they are equal in terms of inherent value to us.

Although I have not read Regan's full book, I can only assume that he would have trouble dealing with a question on this subject because of how vague he makes his argument.  I found also that Warren builds a strong case for equality among humans not on some extreme realist idea that this is the way that god wants it to be but rather on the concept that acknowledging moral equality of others is the price that we pay for expecting that others should treat us with the same dignity.  Warren's assertion about recognizing equal moral rights on the basis of the ability to 'listen to reason' however, I find to be a gray area.  I think that this idea is almost a basis for imperialism because it allows people with an agenda to suspend the rights of others on the concept that they are not able to listen to reason.  I present an argument about Native Americans, we were able to exploit them because our perception of the world and ownership was far different, and thus under our own terms of social contracts we were able to take from them and also deny them moral equality because in many cases they were not able to listen to our 'reason'.  However, I think at the same time because this idea is broad it does have application the Aristotle example also makes sense in trying to rationalize with creatures who do not possess a language.

However, overall I think that Warren's argument is the belief that best coincides with the fate of other animals as well as humans ability to exist in the world around them by concluding that any creature capable of experiencing suffering should not be inflicted by suffering without just reason and that no sentient being can be killed without good reason.  While I can see how these views can be distorted to perform atrocities I also acknowledge that given the complexities of the world we live in, this is perhaps the most ideal situation that we can sensibly achieve.