A thought on Regan

     While reading through Tom Regan's work, I came to a question about his Moral Agency and Moral Patients (a and b). 
I was wondering if there were any examples of non-human animals that could be moral agents. 

Thinking about eusocial and pseudosociatal animals, particularly the honey bee. (not a mammal  as I think all these philosophers consider the mammals too heavily and disregard the arthropods that are social.) When looking at this social insect, they are able to communicate their surroundings, feelings, and remember many locations of flowers, and those who have wronged them. This made me think if they could be considered moral agents, especially int eh case of predation. When a predator (human) approaches the colony, the warriors swarm out and buzz around the antagonists menacingly  Through body language the attacker will usually realize that, "I should not go near as they mean me harm should I approach." Whether this is through OUR own memories and tales of bees stinging us, or through body language alone, I am unsure. The bee will intentionally sting the attacker if they ignore their warnings, aiming to inflict pain and tell them to "go away." This choice is not just "because it's the thing to do" as the bee will die after it's stinger is dislodged in the attacker's flesh. Therefore the bee will do everything in it's power to deter the attacker before it sacrifices itself for the good of the colony. I personally believe this is a fully conscious choice as the bee values it's life enough to try and ward off predators before stinging an attacker and killing itself, yet wishes to do the maximum harm to the attacker to "get the point across"(haha) so it's sacrifice will not be for nothing.

That's my thoughts on that question that I asked.

Initial Thoughts on first reading

My initial thoughts on the preface and the first bit of reading we have done is: I am going to have a tough fight ahead of me. That being said, I am up for a challenge, and probably an introduction would be useful.

I am Andy, a third year biology major with little to no background in philosophy. The one class I took in high school I learned instantly that I dislike Plato's allegory of a cave because I understood none of it through reading. When I asked questions and heard other people's responses I began to understand it's interpreted meaning, and how many people can interoperate the same words in many ways. I began to understand the flow of philosophy a bit more... but only through discussion. In my freshman year, I took Lords of the Ring Cycle, appreciating Wagner's Ring Cycle, and learning a bit about Nietzsche. I liked his name, how it was spelled, and I could kind of grasp some of his ideas.... wether I agree with them or not is another thing, but I started to understand through a handbook, when it came to the actual reading, i was utterly lost. Now in my 3rd year here, I am willing to discus concepts relating to animals, humans, and ethics. We shall see how well I fare, but regardless I am up for a challenge!

Lets begin the fun together! If anyone would like to learn about animal ethics from a biologist's perspective, feel free to read some of my posts!

My feelings on this class's reading make me feel as though there is a bear hunt, and I am said bear battling for my life against the trained dogs of philosophy. I understand not their language, reason, or tactics as they are foregin.... but it hurts... though does it hurt me the same way I could hurt them? This will require deeper thought!