Our relationship with animals is inherently asymetrical. With animals, on the other hand, such social contract isn't possible, because it can't be mutual, there's no reciprocity, they aren't members of our society and can't be because they lack the capacity to do so. It's not automatic (there are plenty nasty examples in history, including quite recent history), but in general that's a solid trend. While the boundaries of social contract are in general arbitrary - there certainly can be social contract that highly values the lives and rights of one "tribe" (for a very, very wide interpretation of "tribe") and disregards the lives and rights of everyone else, there's still a major difference regarding animals it makes sense to extend the social contract to all other people surrounding you (including all other "tribes"), because you'd want them to follow that social contract regarding yourself. And at least part of the murder prohibition certainly is based on this aspect. It's just a very practical thing to do if we establish social norms that I won't kill you and you don't kill me, then we're usually both better off than before. capital punishment, or religious sacrifices, or war) - defining any other killing as murder, and defining murder as Very Bad. In essence, since we live in communities together with other humans (and have done so as long as homo sapiens exist) it makes sense to agree to avoid killing each other in most circumstances (e.g. One aspect (not the only valid aspect, but the one I'll be covering here) of looking at this is from the social contract angle.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |