applied ethics - eating animals Flashcards
what do preference utilitarianists think about eating animals?
preference utilitarians think that we should try to maximise preferences.
- animals are limited in their rationality and do not hold specific hopes and thoughts about the future. as such, animals do not have conscious preferences which makes a difference to how we might treat them morally
why isn’t killing animals the same as killing humans? (utilitarianism)
killing humans is morally wrong because the killing goes against the preference of the victim
- animals do not have the same conscious preferences to stay alive as they lack the necessary conceptual framework
what is the criticism of kant’s position?
it would require us to treat humans who cannot reason, who lack the ability to work out what to do, as worthless.
what does kantian ethics think about eating animals?
because animals lack the autonomy that is the ultimate good (reason)
- they are driven by instinct and do not have the ability to conceptualise what they should do and thus do not pursue ends
because of this we do not have treat them as beings with ends themselves
what does kant argue about being cruel to animals?
kant argues that we have an imperfect duty not to be cruel to animals as we have a duty towards moral self-perfection.
- we can eat animals but shouldn’t house or kill them cruelly/inhumanely
what does aristotle think about eating animals?
aristotle believes that there is a hierarchy of living things and by such, the things lower down the hierarchy (animals) should serve those higher up (humans) as food.
what would a modern virtue ethicist believe about eating animals?
Rosalind Hurthouse argued that the question of the animals moral status was not one that needed to be answered because of the holistic approach and because there are no familiar set of facts that some animals shar that others do not which grants higher moral status
- thus it should be questioned on a case-by-case basis
how does an animals treatment affect whether it is moral?
factory bred animals face horrific suffering their entire lives
- chickens caged together in small spaces will peck and kill each other (social animals) which leads to debeaking without anastesia
if organic chickens were bred more would it be more moral?
what does moral realism say?
naturalism - simulated killing is wrong is true if simulated killing has the natural property of wrongness
non-naturalism - simulated killing is wrong is true if simulated killing has the non-natural property of wrongness
what does moral anti-realism say?
error theory - eating animals is wrong is false because the property of wrongness doesn’t exist
emotivism - eating animals is wrong just means BOO killing and so is not capable of being true of false
prescriptivism - eating animals is wrong just means you shouldn’t do simulated killing and is not capable of being true or false
