animals Flashcards
outline Singer’s argument for animal rights, vegetarianism etc…
advocates against speciesism - discrimination based on species. e.g. should not test on monkey if not willing to test on baby (NOT AGAINST VIVISECTION but is against speciesism)- last form of discrimination to be tackled following racism and sexism.
argument from marginal cases :
you can’t judge moral worth off of rationality as this alleged human function is not shared by all of humanity.
e.g. the severely mentally ill and newborn babies
therefore this does not separate us from animals.
what unites us, of which we should judge moral worth is sentience and ability to suffer.
how can Bentham used to support singer?
’ the question is: can they suffer’
also basic act utilitarianism, when including animals in the utility calculus - greatest happiness for the greatest number, more often than not favours animals. e.g. there are 18 billion chickens in the world and 7 billion humans, the chickens’ desire to not be eaten outweighs the human desire to eat the chickens.
how might a rule utilitarian use the health argument to support vegetarianism?
it provides greater overall and long term happiness for animals and for humans if we adopt vegetarianism
humans - living longer and avoiding heart disease
animals - not being systematically slaughtered.
what is rachel’s basic argument for vegetarianism surrounding a lack of necessity of meat eaters
1 it is wrong to cause pain without morally good reason
2 it is therefore wrong to support practices that cause pain without a morally good reason
3 if we can nourish ourselves without meat, then nourishment is not a morally good reason to cause pain without animals, being unneccessary to out survival
4 we can nourish ourselves without meat
c - nourishment is not a morally good enough reason to not eat meat
how does Hsiao respond to Rachels’ argument?
animals have no moral status as they have no rational thought.
1- moral welfare interests are preferable over non - moral welfare interests
2- human consumption of meat for nutrition is a moral welfare interest
3 - the interests of animals are not a moral welfare interest
c - it is morally permissable to eat meat for nutrition
what is the naive argument?
if it is wrong to eat meat then it is wrong for lions and tigers to eat meat
it is not wrong for lions and tigers to eat meat
it is not wrong for us to eat meat
who replies to the naive argument for eating meat? and how does he reply?
Alward:
carnivores lack higher order mental states and need meat to survive.
we have higher order mental states and don’t need meat to surivive - not necessary - can lead to Rachel’s argument.
what is the capacity reply to singer? how is this refuted?
humans still have the capacity for a higher rationality than all animals which morally separates us from animals.
reply - this doesn’t matter if severely mentally ill people will never be able to access these mental states.
what are aristotle and kant’s positions on animal rights?
aristotle - rationality is our human function which separates us from animals, this clear distinction makes it fine for us to eat them.
kant - we are autonomous whilst animals are heteronomous , so it is okay to eat them. should only refrain from excessive cruelty as a man who indulges in excessive cruelty “may become hard in his dealings with men”
why are you reluctant to go full Singer? i.e. why is speciesism sometimes morally acceptable?
link to support of utilitarianism.
reply?
further response?
animals should be morally used in vivisection over human beings.
although singer does support vivisection, he does not support speciesism so would be against this point.
i argue this from the standpoint that it is necessary.
Although we should assign moral worth based on sentience and suffering, it seems less cruel to test on those with less awareness and connections to other mammals than those with greater awareness and human connections - more neurologically complex and therefore in depth than animal connections.
AWARENESS
COMPLEXITY
EMOTIONAL CONNECTIONS TO THOSE WITH THE SAME AWARENESS AND COMPLEXITY
these tests are necessary for greater overall happiness.
the unneccesary - eating and wearing animals is morally impermissable.
this seems to separate us from animals, should this therefore not justify us eating them?
NO
judge moral worth = sentience and suffering.
our greater awareness separates us from animals - we should use this greater awareness to act virtuously and not inflict uneccessary cruelty.
necessary cruelty - look to this in line with utilitarianism.
