Moral Reciprocity

[joji]

I frequently come across those who argue non-human animals don't deserve moral consideration, rights, etc. due to their incapacity to reciprocate moral behaviour. This seems a bit ridiculous to me but I find it hard to articulate just why I find it ridiculous. I usually mention babies and the disabled. Someone recently replied those edge cases only gain moral consideration by virtue of belonging to the same species, i.e. humans. I know this is speciescist but is there a way to tackle this reasoning without going down that argumentative route?

Any thoughts?

[Red]

I might add more to this later, but I wanna say this now.

Whether or not they can reciprocate moral actions is irrelevant. It's not whether we can get something back from them, rather, they are sentient and have preferences, and just because they may not be able to give anything back to us seems to come from a selfish viewpoint (like, only help them if they help us, which is a sort of Randian Objectivist thinking).
"The question is not, 'Can they reason? ' nor, 'Can they talk? ' but rather, 'Can they suffer?'"

If you have a child, you provide and care for them, but do you necessarily get anything in return for it? If they're under the age of like four they're certainly unable to pay you back in any reasonable or meaningful way. So they have no moral consideration right? Or did you have kids for some other reason that didn't involve paying you back and you provide for them because it's the right thing to do?

Saying they have no moral value just because they're a different species is arbitrary and asinine, and there isn't really anything to say other than that, unless you want to explain how they still have moral value either way (but it doesn't seem like they'd accept that conclusion). It's just moving the goalposts on their part.

Saying that they can't reciprocate moral behavior isn't even accurate for many highly intelligent species anyway, and shows some profound ignorance on their part, which should be obvious to anyone who knows anything about zoology and the behavior of animals such as elephants and dolphins, which can extend their altruistic tendencies to other animals, including humans.

I know what you're saying, how it's ridiculous but can't explain how. It's one of those things that are so asinine you can't articulate why it is so. It's not even wrong.

[BrianBlackwell]

What is morality? What is its basis? This has to be sorted out before debating specific applications of the idea.

When we investigate deeply, we find that morality is about aligning our behavior to the inherent nature of the being/s in question. For example, you alone have the natural ability to move your own limbs, and it is precisely for this reason that it's immoral for me to restrain you by force.

You inherently seek to survive, thrive, and otherwise authentically express, which is why it is wrong (out of alignment with Truth) for my actions to deny (not duly acknowledge) this fact of your being by harming you, blocking your access to food and water, destroying what you create, etc.

This understanding answers for all moral questions. Morality is about aligning our behavior to what objectively IS. Success is gauged as for any application of scientific knowledge: Get it right, and things work. The human world is a disaster because our societies are beset by a thorough corruption of this principle.

[Graeme M]

I suppose there is a debate to be had about the idea of moral reciprocity, that is should moral consideration also demand a moral duty in return. But why would we need to argue the notion that animals don't "deserve" moral consideration when they cannot reciprocate? No-one is suggesting other species should be extended all the same rights and considerations as human beings, so the debate really seems to me to centre upon what moral consideration should be extended to other species. It's not a matter of them deserving something so much as whether or not as moral agents we owe them something. That's an empirical matter that we can debate, I suspect.

[FredVegrox]

Animals that do not have equal capacity for choosing from moral bases still are feeling beings, that we with having any moral bases should not afflict them with harm they will feel unnecessarily, we do no have claim to moral superiority if we don't care about their feelings. Animals that get used, and do suffer with that, are beings that are still capable of giving affection to those who care for them. Some certain pets were known to save lives of individuals in the family caring for them, with their actions.