>Yes, it does. Not with metaphysical certainty, but I
>have no more doubt that dogs suffer than I do that
>human beings do. They certainly act like it.
>Alternately I could maintain without any reason for
>thinking so that they are simply highly complicated
>automata, but that would be perverse.
>
>
>
On reflection about this thread, I have to apologize to Chris, ravi,
John, et al. Asking for logical and evidentiary justification for moral
beliefs, as I did near the beginning of this thread, is a pointless
pedantic exercise. My points are pretty much analogous to a biochemist
giving a Catholic a hard time because the Catholic cannot provide a
reasonable scientific explanation for the transubstantiation of wine
into blood. As Woj pointed out earlier, morals are a matter of social
consensus; the question of whether or not the moral principles are based
on scientific evidence or logical reasoning is completely irrelevant.
Thus I want to emphasize to the discussants in the thread that I do in
fact recognize and respect your moral position on this issue, although I
do not share your view.
Mea maxima culpa,
Miles