Monday, September 21, 2009
Dr. Crosby and Justice
During both of Dr. Crosby's talks on Philosophy and Religion, the question of Justice was begging to be asked. Much like traditional religions, his religion of nature (a philosophy of nature as well) appeals to a sense of respect for individual intrinsic entities (and their value). Animals and trees are regarded on the same level as humans (in so far as they have value in themselves and outside on our dependence on them), and in this respect, is could possibly create a very different form of justice. Other thinkers have invoked ideas of property or other social facts as the origin of justice, but perhaps each individual's ultimate property is that of his/her or it's own life. And thus, since Dr. Crosby is regarding all living things in equal right and might to humans, justice must include these non-human, non-social, non-property (in the sense of land, land rover's, etc), driven interactions. He mentioned that we are animals in nature that must kill to survive, just as other animals have. But as omnivores, and rational creatures in nature, we also have the choice to refrain from that. And thus my question to ya'll is: should justice involve non-humans, and if such a justice could exist, wouldn't it be one sided in so far as only the human component could be responsible for the justice or injustice? And lastly, if such a justice can exist (the aforementioned one-sided example), can that really be justice, when it is not a true interaction, and rather just an action by one superior being reasoned into action upon an inferior being. Do we hold the non-rational animals to justice? No, for lack of reason. So what makes killing endangered animals unjust?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
To answer the last question you asked, I think killing an endangered animal is unjust in the sense that it is irrational.
ReplyDeleteFor example, say you have 100 cookies. You want to eat all 100, but you know you have company coming over later and don't have time to make anymore. A rational person would think, "well instead of eating them all, I'll save some for later since I can't make anymore."
Since it would be irrational to eat all of something or to kill off an entire species, it is therefore unjust.
Justice does not apply to non-humans. It is not unjust to kill an animal, it is immoral. Justice only involves beings that have the ability to reason. Animals cannot understand the rules that are set in place by society, they cannot intentionally break or follow laws. The justice system does not apply to them.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, punishing an animal for an illegal act is not a matter of justice or injustice. It is a question of morality.
Agreed, we do not punish animals for injustice, but we do punish humans for immoral treatment of animals. Vick comes to mind, but there are certainly thousands of people jailed every year for hunting animals unlawfully or treating domesticated animals poorly. How can we, or this system of justice possibly apply to animals if they are not rational beings? What justification if necessary to make promoting dog fighting unjust? And why would promoting dog fighting seem worse than promoting ant fighting? Is it because we have domesticated these animals and have a duty to protect them?
ReplyDelete