1C: Application of Rule Utilitarianism to animal experimentation and use of nuclear weapons as a deterrent Flashcards
What are some ways in which animals are ‘used’ by human species?
- testing/experimentation
- clothes/furniture
- entertainment/sport
- pets
- transport
- food
- medical research
Do animals have a higher, equal or lower moral status as humans? (opinion)
higher, because without them humans would unlikely be able to survive as we rely on them for so much things
What are some examples of medical breakthroughs which have come through using animals?
- cholera
- smallpox
- measles
- cloning
- xenotransplantation
- diabetes: insulin
What is an example of negative results from animal use in medical research?
thalidomide (used as morning sickness drug) - many babies born with restrictive growth in limbs
What does it mean to describe nuclear weapons as a deterrent?
they are kept to be a threat to aggressors, to scare them and stop them from attacking
How might an act utilitarian and a rule utilitarian go about making decisions on the morality of these two issues?
act: hedonic calculus
rule: higher and lower pleasures
Joe Walker - Environmental Ethics
3 different positions of moral status of animals
- animals should have no rights: argued by those who say animals cannot enter a contract (challenged by Peter Singer)
- animals should have some rights: argued by Andrew Linzey
- animals should have the same rights as humans: argued by Tom Regan
Robert Bowie - ethical studies
3 different positions of moral status of animals
- no moral obligation towards animals
- animals deserve same respect as humans: argued by Tom Regan and Peter Singer
- animals should not be treated in a way that depraves humanity: argued by Roger Scruton
Who is Peter Singer?
A humanist
What is the name of Peter Singer’s book?
‘Animal Liberation’
What does Peter Singer believe in?
the idea of equality between species
What is speciesism?
discrimination of prioritising one species (our own) over others
What is instrumental value?
the value or with which is based on how USEFUL something is
What is intrinsic value?
the value or worth that is assumed to be INTEGRAL to an object or creature
How would Singer respond to this: a child and dog are trapped in a fire. You can only save one of them. Which one would you save?
- he would argue if the child was disabled or just a baby, it is not self aware and has no sense of itself as an individual
- the baby also has less interest in staying alive as they have less possibilities of experiencing pleasure in living than a dog
- so he would choose to save the dog
- he considers the baby/disabled child a “non human person” - it doesn’t count for the same in a moral community
- Singer considers the relative moral status of the dog and the child relevant to his choice
Animal Aid - 3 claims to support their view that animal experimentation should NOT happen
- only 200 drugs necessary to human health, yet there are thousands available through retail and marketing competition
- animal experiments are unreliable. eg penicillin is useful for humans but kill guinea pigs and hamsters
- it is known that drugs passed on in animals have been known to chase human deaths
“campaigns against all animal abuse but particularly the use of animals in experiments”
Understanding animal research - 3 claims to support their view that animal experimentation is sometimes necessary
- animal research has played vital part in nearly every medical breakthrough over the last decade
- we share 95% of our genes with a mouse, animals suffer from similar diseases to humans eg cancer, TB, flu and asthma
- all veterinary research has relied on use of animal research
“believes that animal research is a vital part of the scientific process”
Applying Bentham’s utilitarianism to use of animal testing for medical research
- judges each individual moral act uniquely
- GHOTGN: happiness of many humans will be promoted if AEs lead to medical breakthroughs. may lead to saving many human lives in the future and averting epidemics (eg smallpox)
- however we cannot be certain future research will have the same success (link to hedonic calc: certainty)
- have to consider animal suffering it entailed even if it saved many lives ( hedonic calc: purity)
- is animal suffering outweighted by human happiness? - moral status
- Bentham belived humans and animals were not of equal moral value but was a pioneer of animal rights
- summary; Bentham may have intended animals to be taken into account in the hedonic calc, so the extent of pleasure and pain is relevant
Applying Mill’s utilitarianism to the use of animal testing for medical research
- would consider general rules that society could follow
- did not think animals were capable of higher pleasures so did not see them as having equal moral value
- however he though animals had some moral standing as they could feel pleasure and pain
- he thought they should be protected and treated well
- RU might seek to legislate for a reasonable disciplined use of animals in research to benefit human society
- WRU might still wish to over ride a rule in extreme cases, so could flex only either approve or disapprove of animal research in particular circumstances
- harm principle: do you what you like provided it does not hurt anyone else
What could we consider when applying act utilitarianism to animal testing?
- individual human who is seek and needs treatment (impractical)
- individual animal being tested on (impractical)
- specific testing methods (pragmatic)
- species we want to test upon (pragmatic)
- specific illness that needs treatment (pragmatic)
When were atomic bombs used?
end of WW2, by the USA against Japan
Campaign for nuclear disarmament - 3 claims to support their AGAINST nuclear deterrence
- nuclears are genocidal and immoral
- when confronted with todays real security threats, nuclear weapons are irrelevant. they can’t address cyber attacks or climate change
- if trident was used, it would kill indiscriminately but the radioactive fallout would mean it’s effects have no geographical boundary
“Japan knows the horror of war and has suffered as no other nation”
British government- 3 claims to support their view that FOR nuclear deterrence
- they are committed to maintain the minimum amount of destructive power needed to deter any aggressor
- the instruction to fire would be transmitted to the submarine using UK only codes and equipment
- invulnerability and security are key components of the credibility of our deterrent and contribute to overall stability
“to abandon our deterrent now would be an act of supreme irresponsibility”
Key concerns of keeping a nuclear deterrent
- financial cost
- risk of accidental use
- environmental risk through testing
- damage that would be done if used
Hedonic calculus applied to nuclear weapons as a deterrent
- Intensity: fear experienced by unprotected nations would be strong AND survivors of an attack would experience severe pain for a lifetime
- Duration: Hiroshima showed it would shorten any conflict considerably BUT nuclear fall out & long term consequences would be extreme
- Certainty: hostility may increase between nations and escalate the threat of attack AND activating such weapons will definitely cause widespread destruction & genocide
- Propinquity: pain by detonating such weapons is far in the future BUT happiness is postponed by continual striving to develop superior weapons
- Fecundity: possessing weapons leads to fear and mistrust between countries AND such weapons kill indiscriminately, which wouldn’t lead to future happiness
- Purity: weapons would only be used to threat an enemy- so intended to address real pain BUT there’s no geographical boundaries to the devastation it would cause, painful effects will spread
- Extent: possession of such weapons ensures safety from threats by other nations, so potentially protects the whole world BUT possession of WMDs by competing countries has triggered wars in the past
Applying utilitarianism to the idea that a nation CAN morally own and develop nuclear weapons
GHOGN is achieved if a nation feels equipped to defend itself in an emergency
2. nuclear development fulfills harm principle, as the weapons would only be deployed to protect the majority from further harm
3. deployment of such weapons would be a last resort so by definition would create more happiness than any alternative
4. more security from aggressors, especially if they have nuclear weapons, we cannot predict the future will be peaceful
Applying utilitarianism to the idea that a nation CANNOT morally own and develop nuclear weapons
- the GHOGN is not achieved by making all other nations feel threaten and fearful
- detonation of such weapons violates the harm principle that power is exercised over others to prevent harm, not cause it
- the cost of keeping and developing such weapons prevents development of other pursuits beneficial to human happiness
- nuclear waste is impossible to dispose of and very damaging to the environment
Apply act utilitarianism to the use of nuclear weapons as a deterrent
- each case needs to be judged separately
- would not take into account any previous moral judgements on having nuclear weapons as a deterrent
- would use hedonic calc: consider 7 criteria for both sides of the dilemma
- consider the happiness created in each column and judge the morality of the particular case of having nuclear weapons as a deterrent by favouring the side that generates the most happiness
- ex president Truman applied AU to his ethical dilemma of ending the war with Japan in 1945. had to weigh up the cost of lives lost
- he decided to use nuclear weapons because it would cost less lives than an invasion and create more happiness
Apply rule utilitarianism to the use of nuclear weapons as a deterrent
- consider general rules that society could follow
to bring about the maximum happiness for the maximum amount of people - RU may say use of nuclear weapons as a deterrent creates more happiness than unhappiness
- however it can generate unhappiness because they have a potential risk to the existence of the whole of humanity if nuclear war did occur
- this unhappiness may be outweighed by the happiness of the on-going peace that nuclear weapons have bought to the nations that own them
- no nation who own nuclears as a deterrent have been invaded by another: brings peace to these nations and the happiness
- might conclude that nuclear weapons as a deterrent is good because it creates the most happiness
