"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote in message news:4a06d749$1@news.povray.org...
> "Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
> news:4a059bca$1@news.povray.org...
> > On 5/8/2009 4:29 AM, John VanSickle wrote:
> > > Warp wrote:
> > >> Man can be held to a different standard because we are a sentient
> species
> > >> who understands the consequences of irresponsive behavior.
>
> > > Why should that be the criterion for a differing standard of behavior?
>
> > Because it allows us to.
> >
> > You cannot hold a cat morally responsible for killing a family of mice
> > because the cat is incapable of understanding morals.
> >
> > You can hold a person responsible for killing a family of people because
> > the person is capable of understanding morals.

To nitpick, those are not analogous. A cat is not to mice as a man is to
man. A correct one might be:

You cannot hold a cat morally responsible for killing a family of mice.
You cannot hold a man morally responsible for killing a family of cows. (In
most societies)
You cannot hold a man morally responsible for killing a family of dogs. (In
some societies)
...etc

Also, it's not about understanding morals, but establishing them. Cats (as
well as dogs/wolves) also have established behaviour. Those are much less
complex than ours naturally, but they also hold each other responsible, and
punish those who don't obey the rules.

But in the end, I agree with your main point: We have different expectations
from humans than we have from cats. It would be silly to try to apply the
same rules to different things and different situations.

Post a reply to this message