Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

PHIL 120 > Veganism > Flashcards

Veganism Flashcards

1
Q

The simple principle about consumers?

A
  • If x is produced in a way that is morally wrong, then it is morally wrong to be a consumer of x.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

McPherson offers an argument for ethical veganism:

A
  • it is typically morally wrong to eat or use animal products
  • appears to the anti-complicity principle
  • Focus on meat eating but applies to the consumption and use of other animal products.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Model argument on Veganism?

A
  • it is morally wrong to make animals suffer, so it is wrong to kill them, so it its morally wrong to eat them, therefore it is typically morally wrong to eat meat.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

it is morally wrong to make animals suffer

A
  • So, the extension of ‘animals’ in P1 is limited to those than can feel pain.
  • mammals can feel pain
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

can non-mammalian animals feel pain?

A
  • precautionary argument to include them in the extension of ‘animals’
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

If it is wrong to make animals suffer, then it is morally wrong to kill animals.

A
  • material conditional claim
  • In order to reject P2, you must grant that it is wrong to make animals suffer, but argue that it is morally permissible to kill them.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

McPherson also offers a compelling reason why it is wrong to kill animals:

A
  • Killing animals deprives them of a valuable future.

- as a sufficient wrong-making

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

If it is morally wrong to kill animals, then it is morally wrong to eat meat.

A

-appeals to a principle of anti-complicity
If an act is morally wrong, then it is morally wrong to be complicit in its moral wrongdoing.
2. To eat meat is to be complicit in the killing of animals.
3. Therefore, if it is morally wrong to kill animals, then it is morally wrong to eat meat.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

IS THE ANTI-COMPLICITY PRINCIPLE TRUE?

A
  • If an act is morally wrong, then it is morally wrong to be complicit in its moral wrongdoing.
  • McPherson denies that in order for one to be complicit in an act’s wrongness, one’s complicity must be causally efficacious.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Anti-complicity principle?

A
  • It is typically wrong to aim to benefit by cooperating with the wrongful elements of others’ plans.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

UTILITARIANISM AND VEGETARIANISM

A
  • Utilitarianism is a moral theory.
  • goal to achieve:
    1. Theoretical: To discover the underlying features of actions
    2. Practical: To offer moral guidance in deliberation; to help us figure out what we should do.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

UTILITARIANISM

A
  • (Act) Utilitarian standard of rightness: An action A is right (morally required) if and only if (and because) A maximizes total utility(well being).
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Singer :

A

If you’re a utilitarian, then you should be a vegetarian. WHY? The interests of every being affected by an action are to be taken into consideration and given the same weight as the like interests of any other being.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

OBJECTIONS TO SINGER’S ARGUMENT?

A
  1. Not all raising and killing of animals for food causes animal suffering.
  2. Once we take into consideration the consequences of abolishing factory farming, it’s not clear that the utility calculation will favour vegetarianism.
  3. Becoming a vegetarian will have no effect on the suffering of animals on factory farms
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

RESPONDING TO OBJECTION 1

A
  • If the animals raised for food have lived pleasant lives and then killed humanely (i.e. without suffering), then meat eating might be morally permissible on utilitarian grounds
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

RESPONDING TO OBJECTION 2

A

It’sdifficulttorationalizehowtheutilitariancalculationcouldfavourcurrentpractices.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

RESPONDING TO OBJECTION 3?

A
  • But if you’re a utilitarian, this really shouldn’t matter.
  • This objection states that, for any individual, becoming a vegetarian makes no difference to the amount of animals raised (and thus suffer) in factory farms.
  • Also, Singer argues that becoming an active vegetarian is the most practical and effective way to end the exploitation of animals.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

WHAT IS INDUSTRIAL ANIMAL AGRICULTURE?

A
  1. “Factory farming” or “animal feeding operation” (AFO): The high-density stocking of animals for the purpose of producing food.
  2. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA): AFOs congregate animals, feed, manure and urine, dead animals and production operations on a small land area.
    In Canada they are called the intensive feeing operations
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

THE ETHICS OF INDUSTRIAL ANIMAL AGRICULTURE

A
  1. One way to argue against consuming animals is to ground its putative wrongness in the putative wrongness of AFOs.
  2. Effects on people:
  3. Effects on the environment
  4. effects on animals
    5.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

PETER SINGER (1974) ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL?

A

Racism: Favouring the interests of one racial group of people over other racial groups. •
Sexism: Favouring the interests of one sex or gender over another.

21
Q

Moral Equity:

A
  • “The principle of the equality of human beings is not a description of an alleged actual equality among humans: it is a prescription of how we should treat humans”.
22
Q

THE UTILITARIAN PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL CONSIDERATION OF INTERESTS (PECI)

A

-The interests of every being affected by an action are to be taken into consideration and given the same weight as the like interests of any other being.

23
Q

THE EQUALITY ARGUMENT

A
  • speciesism is morally wrong, and wrong for the same reason that sexism and racism are wrong
  • it is morally wrong to favour the interests of human being over the interests other species.
  • and singer argues that when we eat meant and consume other animals products we are favouring our interests over the interests of these animals.
24
Q

The Equality argument?

A

if an individual has the capacity to suffer then it has interests, al animals have the capacity to suffer. all animals have interests, the principle The principle of equal consideration of interests states that the interests of every being affected by an action are to be taken into consideration and given the same weight as the like interests of any other being. So, the interests of all animals affected by an action are to be taken into consideration and given the same weight as the like interest of any other being. But that’s just want we mean by the ‘equality of animals’. So, all animals are equal.

25
Q

Harman

A

unlike the natural sciences, however, we dont need to posit moral facts or properties to explain why we make the moral judgments that we do

26
Q

ANOTHER ABDUCTIVE ARGUMENT FOR MORAL RELATIVISM

A
  1. different cultures have different moral codes
  2. culture’s moral code is a reflection of its way to life
  3. a cultures way of life is relative
  4. so morality is relative
27
Q

Open question argument? X is approved by my culture and x is morally right

A
  • being morally right and being approved by one’s culture are not analytically equivalent and this dont mean the same thing
  • one might be inclined to infer the the property of being morally right is not identical to the property of being approved by one’s culture
28
Q

THE EUTHYPHRO PROBLEM?

A
  • a Socratic dialogue written by Plato
  • to teach about the essence or nature of Piety
  • piety is whatever is loved by all the gods
  • this might be true but it does not follow that the nature or essences of piety is being loved by all gods.
  • to determine that he asks “ do the gods love action because they re pious or are action pious because they re loved by the gods.
  • but this doesn’t get at the nature or essence of piety.
29
Q

THE EUTHYPHRO PROBLEM FOR MORAL RELATIVISM?

A
  • members in culture C condone the nature or essence relative moral truth because they are morally right
30
Q

THE EUTHYPHRO ARGUMENT?

A
  1. A culture either has good reasons to condone (or condemn) X or it doesn’t.
  2. If it doesn’t, then morality is arbitrary, and thus not worthy of the name; might as
    well be moral nihilists.
  3. If it does, then it is these reasons—not the fact that a culture condones or condemns certain actions—that explain what makes right actions right; wrong actions wrong.
  4. Either way, moral relativism is in bad shape.
31
Q

Enoch

A
  • he argues that most of us are committed tot he truth of moral objectivism
  • which does not guarantee the truth of moral objectivism, so he think that morality is objective.
  • offers the three tests:
    1. The spinach test
    2. The phenomenology of disagreement and deliberation
    3. The counterfactual test
32
Q

The Spinach Test:

A
  • Matters of taste—like whether spinach tastes good—is all about the individual; if you don’t like something, you have some reason not to consume it.
  • Not funny, and this suggests a commitment to moral objectivism. because to doesn’t involve our personal preferences.
33
Q

THE PHENOMENOLOGY OF DISAGREEMENT AND DELIBERATION?

A
  • If morality was really a matter of taste, then the phenomenology of moral disagreement would be akin to, say, the phenomenology of disagreement about whether Montreal bagels are better than NY bagels.
  • however moral disagreement feel to be disagreement about objective matters of facts
34
Q

THE COUNTERFACTUAL TEST?

A
  • the spinach test is a counterfactual test
  • ## Had our practices and beliefs been very different, wold it still have need true that so-and-so?
35
Q

UpShot to Enoch:

A
  • the 3 tests dont really show that morality is objective
  • rather moral scours and practices aspire to objectivity
  • Enoch is arguing that moral objectivism should be the default position, and the burden of proof should be on the relativist or the nihilist.
36
Q

WHAT ARE ANTI-OBJECTIVIST ARGUMENTS?

A
  1. argument from disagreement

2. argument from moral skepticism

37
Q

Cantro’s diagonalization prood?

A
  • Theorem:There are infinite sets that cannot be put into one -to- one correspondence with infinite set of natural numbers.
38
Q

PHILIPPA FOOT AND THE TROLLEY PROBLEM?

A
  • when, if ever, is it morally permissible to sacrifice the lives of the few for the sake of the many?
39
Q

THE ROLE OF MORAL PRINCIPLES:

A
  • provide unified explanations of moral facts
  • If action A in C1 is morally wrong, and action B in C2 is relevant similar to A in C1, it should turn out to be the case that action B in C2 is also morally wrong.
  • what explainess the wrongness of A in C1 should also explain the wrongness of B in C2
40
Q

MOTIVATING THE TROLLEY PROBLEM

A
  • multiple transplant cases: she can refrain from taking the healthy specimen’s parts, letting his patients die to let her other 5 patients survive
  • deriver case: truck driver, whose brakes broke down, one person on the right hw would kill him and save the 5 however he can not take the turn and kill the five and save the one
41
Q

The Trolley Problem

A
  • the problem of explaining why it would be permissible for Edward the driver of the trolley to save the five and kill the one, but not permissible for Danika to save the five and kill the one.
42
Q

THE DOCTRINE OF DOUBLE EFFECT?

A
  • One of the principle that Foot considers in addressing the trolley problem is the doctrine of double effect (DDE)
  • It is sometimes morally permissible to cause a foreseeable harm by intentionally bringing about a good result, even though it would not be morally permissible to intentionally cause such a harm, even as a means to a good end.
  • this makes a difference between intentioned foresight
  • the word double effect refer tot he 2 effects that an actor my produce: the one aimed at and the one foreseen nut in no way desired
43
Q

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN DOING AND ALLO WING

A

DDA: it is wise to do harm that to allow harm to happen

killing vs. letting die: it is worse to kill someone than to let them die

44
Q

when is Killing worse than letting die?

A
  • foot’s answer first draw a distance between positive and negative duties
  • positive: duties to act (duty to donate, duty to save lives)
  • negative: duties to refrain from acting (duties not o harm, to refrain from killing)
  • it is morally impermissible to violate a more stringent duty (negative) than to violate the positive
45
Q

TREATING PEOPLE AS MERE MEANS:

A
  • Do not use people as mere means, but always as ends, too
  • ## One may act divert a threat onto the few if the few have no more claim against the threat than the many.
46
Q

the nature of this claim:

A
  • Thomson reconsiders MP4 in terms of rights.

- that one has a right to what one owns

47
Q

Waiving rights:

A
  • All have a right to life, and when you flip the switch, you violate this right to life.
  • explains why we think it is merely morally permissible, and why we feel discomfort it doing it.
48
Q

proceed with caution:

A
  • Thomson think that the trolley problem can be solved by appealing to the notion of a right
  • think of what right is being violated, and whether it is a weighty one
49
Q

Thomson’s solution:

A
  • One may think that the right to bodily integrity is a stringent right
  • It is permissible to divert what will be a threat to many onto a few if this is done by means which do not themselves constitute infringements of stringent rights
  • this explains why it is permissible to kill one by flipping the switch not by physically killing them.

PHIL 120 (6 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions