I fail to see the relevance of including, in moral deliberation, the harm that animals inflict upon other animals
It’s wrong to make dogs fight ⇒ it’s right to stop someone else from making dogs fight ⇒ it’s right to spend some resources stopping Nature from making dogs fight. Or at least, I don’t see where this logic fails.
Ok, but 1) I won’t say that Nature or the dogs do something moral or immoral. The moral agent that takes a decision to act or not does something moral or immoral.
And 2) the moral agent’s action is moral or immoral regardless of the fact that dogs and wolves have been fighting in nature for millions of years. That fact is neither a mitigating nor an aggravating circumstance for the moral agent. It is neutral, the agent bears no responsibility for the state of nature.
It’s wrong to make dogs fight ⇒ it’s right to stop someone else from making dogs fight ⇒ it’s right to spend some resources stopping Nature from making dogs fight. Or at least, I don’t see where this logic fails.
Ok, but 1) I won’t say that Nature or the dogs do something moral or immoral. The moral agent that takes a decision to act or not does something moral or immoral.
And 2) the moral agent’s action is moral or immoral regardless of the fact that dogs and wolves have been fighting in nature for millions of years. That fact is neither a mitigating nor an aggravating circumstance for the moral agent. It is neutral, the agent bears no responsibility for the state of nature.
Ah I see, I misunderstood your point. You’re right.