# Innocence



## Solus Christus (Jul 24, 2009)

I have a question I'd like to see where this goes. Perhaps it's really my poor understanding of the term "innocence."

This, I feel, is a rather phliosophical conundrum but hopefully I'll be able to be clear about it.

I had read a post involving dogs and Nair (don't ask and it wasn't on here), and someone had mentioned about dogs being innocent. But it got me to thinking... are pets, animals, and such really innocent?

Going by a strict dictionary definition, it states the following:



> *–adjective*
> 1.	free from moral wrong; without sin; pure: innocent children.
> 2.	free from legal or specific wrong; guiltless: innocent of the crime.
> 3.	not involving evil intent or motive: an innocent misrepresentation.
> ...



So are animals free from moral wrong? Would you consider them pure? Can they commit evil?

I've often thought words like 'innocence' and 'guilt' were legal terms, so can we rightly apply them to animals? If we cannot, then should we refer to them as being innocent creatures? But, if we did call, say our dog, an innocent dog then would it be right to say that our tree is also innocent? Does that not logically make sense? I find it seems absurd. So I feel that there words really only apply to humans.

I suppose I may just be splitting hairs. So feel free to tell me that this is just an exercise is futility, as there may be no real correct answer. Still, I am curious on what you all think about on this matter. Thanks for those of you who decide to weigh in.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 24, 2009)

I'm not aware that animals are ever considered to have a conscience or moral sense. They behave instinctively. Certain ones (dogs?) seem to have a range of "personality", but I do not think this indicates a moral sense. Dogs seem to recall they were not supposed to do something, or seem to react with a "master will be mad at me for this" attitude, but I do not think they have any moral categories.

So, I do not think that "innocence" is a good description for animals. If an animal kills a human, it should be put down. Its action entails a consequence. But its action is not the same as a murder.


----------



## TimV (Jul 24, 2009)

> If an animal kills a human, it should be put down. Its action entails a consequence. But its action is not the same as a murder.



I think that the laws about killing animals that have attacked a human are just common sense animal genetics; to breed safer domestic animals. The ox that gores gets eaten rather than sent to hell.


----------

