I think we do have obligations to animals, however, It really depends on what kind of animals and how obligated we feel towards them pending where we are from. In some countries it is okay to eat animals, and some other countries it might not be okay to eat an animal like that. Some cultures think of certain animals as a god where some other cultures might just think of that same animal as a meal. The more thought this situation is given the more difficult it seems to be. To eat a burger or have a piece of bacon doesn’t take much though, most people don’t think twice about eating it.
But to eat a dog or cat in American society is something that we do frown upon and that is Just wrong to us. Does this mean we do have ethical obligations to animals? To a point, yes we do. People have a decent sense of what is ethical to animals and what isn’t. We raise animals, that’s ethical if you ask me, but eating them after we raise them. Is that ethical? Are we helping with the circle of life? This is what the philosopher Astrakhan Donnelley calls “The Murky ethical It’s a very difficult situation. Herzog says, “Ethical Judgment puts humans on a different moral plane from that f other animals” (247).
What he means by this is that humans, well most humans, think before they do something. We have ethical backgrounds. Animals don’t, or do they? We have a lot of science and a lot of technology but whether animals have ethical judgment is something we don’t know yet. The best way that Herzog explains someone who Isn’t a vegetarian, but eats meat, but doesn’t eat a lot of meat is “we meddlers see the world In shades of gray rather than In the clear blacks and whites of committed animal activists and their equally vociferous opponents”(247).
Which Is a very good way to think about It. The Dally Lama says people need “a moral compass we can use collectively without getting bogged down In doctrinal What he means by this Is we all need a happy middle, not a troubled middle. Almost Like a gulden we all go by, but one that matters because It’s what we think, not what doctors or science proves. That would most likely solve a lot of this “troubled middle” or “murky ethical territory” that a lot of humans are in. On a high plane than animals. The main reason they think that is because of power.
Humans posses a lot more power than animals due to tools, education, technology, etc. The Dali Lama explains the problem with the population as “forcing unnaturally quick changes”(133). We have forced ourselves to grow faster instead of waiting for the natural way to take its path and that is why we think we are on a higher plane. We may be on a higher plane in our minds. But in an animal’s eyes what says that they don’t think they are on the moral plane. What animals think is a serious unknown question.
As far as ethical obligations, the abuse of animals at the hands of human beings ND as a result of their actions is ethically wrong because the acts and ethical concepts that we are a part of, that we witness, affect the contours of our moral development. In what follows, I want to defend this anthropocentric position by drawing on the sociality of our ethical life and arguing that the paradigm for the legal protection of animals needs to be grounded in a defense of our collective ethical sensibilities and the ways that these sensibilities exert a force that shapes the ethical personality of individuals.
In conclusion, the subject of the trouble middle is a serious problem. It is quite a hard situation to deal with and how someone takes it on isn’t exactly easy. If humans could find a moral compass with this troubled middle situation it could help a lot. What make something okay really shouldn’t make other things okay. We need to start having a moral compasses as humans. Hal Herzog does a good Job explaining the troubled middle and what the situation is that we are all in. He’s right, this situation isn’t black and white. It’s a lot of gray. And this gray area is where most people are in.