Care Ethics

Josephine Donovan, while perhaps less preachy than Regan and Singer, has a theory that is, I think, very assuming and generalizing in a way that is not fair, or even correct. The problem with mainly emotion-based ethics is that there are 7 billion people in the world, all of whom have different DNA, different geological surroundings, different cultures, different parents (who had different DNA, friends, cultures, surroundings, etc), different friends (who have different parents (who have different DNA, friends, cultures, surrounding, etc)). There are 7 billion people in the world who have entirely different experiences; there are very few claims that one can make that apply to all humans. Therefore, saying that one will necessarily feel bad for a cow when they see a human torturing it is not actually true. Her theory would also produce a problem for animals that many humans detest intensely (snakes for example).

While I personally feel bad for most animals, I am aware that other people do not. Actually, I tend to feel most bad for the animals that other people don't tend to care about, like snakes. So, in caring for the animal, I would rather that people act in a way that is based on reason rather than emotion.

I have no need for trying to force people to feel a certain way or pretend that they are wrong for not feeling that way; I don't think it is right to invalidate other people's experiences. Her section was interesting to me, because she was saying that human's view animals as defective humans, but, without saying it, she's basically implying that humans who don't sympathize with cows are emotionally defective humans.