Saturday, February 5, 2011

Harm v. Suffering

All living things have the ability to be harmed. From weeds and ticks to monkeys and humans, all living organisms can be harmed by others. For example, every time a woodpecker pecks a tree it ends up destroying a part of  the tree. When a human kills an animal for food the human is causing the animal harm. The main difference between these two examples is that the woodpecker can only harm the tree. The human, by killing the animal, causes the animal both harm and suffering. All animals have the ability to suffer because they all have the capacity to feel pain. Plants, unlike animals, cannot. This is why it is easier for humans to justify the killing plants over the killing of animals. The plants might be harmed when they are killed for human purposes, but when the plants are killed, they feel no pain. No matter how quickly or humanly a human kills an animal however, the animal still feels pain upon death. The ability for animals to suffer raises the moral status of animals over other living things.
While all animals can be harm and experience suffering, not all animals suffer the same.  When comparing a mosquito to another animal such as the dog, the dog is given a higher moral status because it has more ways it can suffer. A dog can be put through endless amounts of cruelty lasting years; a mosquito has the life expectancy of one day. Even if a mosquito is subjected to pain, its short life span prevents it from experiencing the kind of suffering capable of dogs and other more complex animals.

Q: In some respect, do certain plants have a higher moral status over specific animals?

No comments:

Post a Comment