The idea being debated
Some people say: "Ethics is a human thing. Only humans think about right and wrong. So only humans should receive consideration."
The author offers three criticisms of this idea.
Criticism 1: not every human "does ethics"
Babies, small children, and some people with serious illnesses can't think about right and wrong. Even so, we all agree they matter. So "doing ethics" can't be the requirement for mattering.
Criticism 2: those who are helped don't need to know how to help
Think of a doctor. A doctor needs to know medicine to treat patients. But patients don't need to know medicine to be treated. A baby doesn't understand anything about medicine and can still be cured.
Ethics works the same way. The person making decisions needs to be able to think about ethics. But the ones affected by the decisions don't.
The argument mixes up two questions:
- Who can be held responsible? Those who can reflect on what they do.
- Who needs to be taken into account? Those who can be harmed or helped.
Criticism 3: the argument goes in a circle
When someone points out that babies don't think about ethics, people defending the argument usually say: "But they're the same species as those who do." That's going back to the appeal to the group, which we've already seen doesn't work. In the end, it's species that decides again.
In short
- Many humans don't think about ethics, and they still matter.
- To be taken into account, it's enough to be able to be harmed or helped.
- The argument ends up going back to "it's the right species."