From a moral standpoint, it doesn't matter if the horse enjoys it. The point is the get the semen, not for the horse to enjoy it.
Whereas with the dolphin example, the point was for the dolphin to enjoy it. There was no "morally purer" point.
Whereas with the dolphin example, the point was for the dolphin to enjoy it. There was no "morally purer" point.
You mean from your (current) moral standpoint. "Moral" is not exactly something fixed, it is varies greatly depending on both space and time.
The shocking thing is the way that Lilly started with the assumption that dolphins were sentient and worth communicating with, and ended with "It's just a dumb animal, so why should we care how it feels?"
The turning point seems to have been the observation that it didn't start turning cartwheels - metaphorically or otherwise - when dosed up on acid.
Basically he dismissed it when it didn't turn into an acid freak - ignoring the fact that it was demonstrating curiosity, the ability to relate and form attachments, and many human-like elements of language.
All of which were far more convincing as evidence of real sentience, and more worthy of research, than the fact that it failed to trip balls on cue.
>I'm saying that intent informs morality. eg: Murder and Man Slaughter.