Applied Dilemmas Flashcards
What are the important questions to ask on the topic of animal welfare?
Do we have obligations to other animals?
Do non-human animals have moral status?
What is Speciesism and who is one of the main boys who coined this idea?
Singer
Speciesists allow the interests of own species to go before that of another species
We are largely Speciesist
When do we use animals as means and how are these examples of Speciesism
- Eat and wear them
- Experiment on them
- Pet them
- Use them in sport and entertainment
We are sacrificing the important interests of animals for our own trivial interests
What is the Kantian approach to animal welfare?
One must be rational, autonomous, self-directing agent (critical self awareness and ability to manipulate complex concepts)
Objection: Can get moral patients not just moral agents (eg disabled)
Some animals have these capabilities
What formula should be used in deciding if animals have moral status?
To have moral status you need X,Y,Z
Non-human animals are/aren’t X,Y,Z
Therefore, Non-human animals do/don’t have moral status
What is the ‘Argument from marginal cases’?
Denote beings who would normally have full rationale and autonomy and are therefore still treated with same moral status
What is the Moral Agency Approach to animals and that
One must be capable of function in a moral community, which means having rights and responsibilities
Objection: AMC again
What is a Utilitarian approach to Animal welfare?
Can they suffer?
Need capacity for welfare and suffering
Singer believes all animals are equal and is closelt linked to the Equality Principle
What is the discussion regarding the Equality principle?
- Not a claim about factual equality of humans but how humans ought to be treated –> if all different then why equal? –> Only alter treatment with reagrds to relevant differences, otherwise should be treated equally (eg A&E)
- Whether a difference between individuals justifies a diffrernce in treatment depends upon the kind of treatment in question, A difference that justifies a difference in treatment need not justify another
(Rachels, ‘created from animals’, p178)
What Animal welfare & Animal rights respectively?
Focus on the elimination of unnecessary suffering, and humane treatment instead
Movement to protect animals from being property/means of humans, part of the moral community
Give examples of philosophers who believe animals shouldn’t have rights
Cohen - Categorically wrong, rights are human and because they are capable of excercising it
Fox - Spread so thin its become over used and used incorrectly –> defeated by AMC
Speciesism: Cohen being member of kind of animal that can do that (kinsmen argument) Fox agrees (gives preferential treatment to own species)
Is Speciesism plausible? If its ok then surely racism and sexism are too
Give examples of philosophers who believe animals should have rights
Regan - Treatment based on inherent value, anything living has IV makes anything eligible for treatment
Singer - All animals are equal
What are action affecting principles?
An act is very wrong if and only if it harms someone
An act harms someone if and only if they are worse off than they would have otherwise been
What is Parfit’s claims regarding SPC and DPC?
Same people choice: Affects what happens to people, not who exists
Different people choice: Affects who exists
Moral theories - Designed for same people choices
- do not work in DPC
- DPC are much more common then we think
What is an example of Parfit’s for regarding future people
Summer or Winter child
Winter child will has serious ailments (aren’t life destroying though)
Intuition is that not avoiding the ailment is bad but alternative outcome doesn’t exists and so cant theoretically object to it
Objection: But that person is wronged though cos of the bad attitude
links in with ‘wronged without worse off’ response
Give some responses to Non-identity argument
Kant & Universalizability: If your ancestor had not lied, you would not exist
Bite the bullet: We have no obligations to future people
Wrong without worse off: Plane crash, Donald not allowed on cos he black - he is not worse off but he has still been wronged, his basic rights have been violated even though he is overall better off
Utilitarianism: Act is only wrong if and only if it produces less happiness, doesn’t matter who they are, so long as they are happy
Future peoples’ interests can still be harmed and shouldn’t rule them out arbitrarily
What is Kant’s likely opinion on animal welfare (from a political perspective)?
- States role is to take rights we have in theory and make them real to protect them
- Animals should be protected as they have their own ends (also treating them bad corrupts the moral self) - are they sophisticated enough for rights though?
- State is embodiment of omnilateral will, so enshrines the omnilateral will
What is Mill’s political standpoint on animal welfare?
- Use of authority is to prevent harm to others, animals can be harmed; difference between broad and narrow ie narrow = what laws you cant have not what you should have
- Could have laws cos it offends people’s moral sensibility rather then for considerations of animals themselves: indirect way to defend AW, Mill might not like it though cos defence needs to be direct and visirol (but it might not be)
What would Barry say about AW?
- Equal consideration of interests, so do animals have interests? If so then AW would be good
- Political autonomy for minority subcultures - could they make own laws on this
(do animals have distinct political interests?
What would Berlin have to say about AW?
- Protection of Liberty is essential to Lib
- Physical/metaphysical: - Negative liberty - no obstacles, keeps options open, animals would be covered as they have options
- Mill wants to protect authenticity - animals don’t have conception of what has value
Name an objection to AW in the political sense and a response to it
Fields and that restrict the negative liberty so would impose on liberty of humans
Resp: Protecting anyone’s negative liberty infringes on another’s
Discuss Positive Liberty with regards to AW
Do animals have capacity of autonomy?
- Acc. to Berlin, they do not cos cant make value judgements before taking choice, similar to authenticity cos of self-exploration etc
+ Could work but difficult to figure out cos can’t rely truly understand animals; at least we know it involves being alive
Outline the arguments of positive liberty with regards to AW in the legal sense
Status effects
- Can be degrading and affront to dignity, might not be necessary without physical sense
- Not relevant to animals cos not degrading to be owned and don’t suffer psychology unlike humans - no conception of being owned
+ Does that make it ok for them to be treated however though?
Give some philosophers views on the issue of whether Liberalism allows the state to impose on minority subcultures the liberal view of animals
Okin: - Cultures have been means of oppressing women, maybe that also applies to animals
Shouldn’t give cultures the right to oppress these groups in the name of ID
Obj: Even sexist cultures give some sort of value to women and set of rules which allow them to have meaning, animals don’t require this so no question of not protecting them and imposing on culture
Barry: - Equal consideration of interests again
- Singer thinks should treat animals equally cos no living creature wants pain or suffering
- Barry agree with this (Kosher & Halal meat)
Kimberley Smith: - Imposition isn’t necessarily an exercise of authority, Mill Harm Principle applies only to exercising of authority.
Few objections to persuasion of reducing animal harm, try and find non-law alternatives
