is to eat healthily and maintain
nutrient levels
so as to ensure optimum energy
levels and function.
But as far as our obligations
to animals seem to stretch
we are only have a debt to them
so far as we have a meaningful
relationship with them,
according to Cohen.
What obligation do we have
to not harm the red macaw
in the Amazon rainforest?
There is no commitment that we
have made to the macaw, there is
no possession of authority over him.
Likewise we have no special relationship
with him nor do we feel we
should act in faithful service to him.
We are not part of his family
and therefore have no family connections
with a macaw just as we have no
duty of care towards him, he is a wild creature.
And lastly, a macaw has done us
no spontaneous act of kindness and
therefore leaves us with no obligation
to balance such goodwill.
A macaw is none of these things to us,
yet we still have an obligation to
treat him well, says Cohen.
Why should we treat him well then?
We were presented with no overarching reason
as to why we have an obligation to all animals
to make sure they are comfortable, happy,
well taken care of and that they do not suffer.
I think to recognize our obligation to all animals
is to accept at least a piece of Cora Diamond's argument.
In so far as we are all living beings,
it is wrong to deny comforts to animals
to further human comfort.
What is this but an obligation
to protect animals interests?
Cohen says we have an obligation
to animals, but they do not have rights.
Whereas I can understand his argument
for why animals don't have rights,
he seems to leave out a piece of
why we have an obligation to
all animals...
No comments:
Post a Comment