WEEK 9 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES GREEN BIOETHICS & ANIMAL ETHICS Flashcards
Is there such a thing
as a human
exceptionalism?
Should we always strive to improve
human health without regard for the
planetary consequences?
Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics
- Aristotle’s virtue ethics is grounded in the development of moral
character and the cultivation of virtues, such as courage, temperance,
and wisdom. - According to Aristotle, humans can attain eudaimonia, or the highest
good, by living a life of virtue and rationality. - While Aristotle recognized that animals possess some virtues, he
believed that only humans have the rational capacity to achieve
eudaimonia. - This view places humans at the center of moral considerations and
implies that they have a higher moral status than animals and
ecosystems.
Kant’s Deontology
- Kantian deontology is based on the idea that moral actions are
grounded in rationality and duty, rather than in consequences. - Central to this theory is the concept of treating humans as ends in
themselves, rather than as mere means. - Kant believed that only humans possess the rational capacity for
moral reasoning, which is why they have moral worth and rights. - Animals and ecosystems, in contrast, have only instrumental value
and are not considered morally significant in their own right.
Bentham’s and Mill’s Utilitarianism
- Utilitarianism seeks to maximize human overall happiness or pleasure
while minimizing pain and suffering. - Although utilitarianism can theoretically include the well-being of
animals and ecosystems in its calculations, the original formulations
by Bentham and Mill tend to prioritize human pleasure and pain. - In practice, this often means that non-human concerns are secondary
to human interests, reinforcing the idea of human exceptionalism.
Aristotle
Core Reason for
Human
Superiority
Humans uniquely possess
rationality and moral
reasoning, placing them at
the top of the “Great Chain
of Being
View on
Animals’
Purpose
Animals exist to serve human
needs within a natural
hierarchy
Moral Status of
Animals
Animals lack rational thought
and thus have no intrinsic
moral worth
Key Implications
for Animal
Treatment
Animals are resources for
human use; no ethical
requirement for their welfare
St. Thomas Aquinas
Core Reason for
Human
Superiority
Rationality allows humans to
fulfill divine purpose and
connect with God
View on
Animals’
Purpose
Animals are “instruments”
created by God to aid
humans in achieving their
spiritual goals
Moral Status of
Animals
Animals lack rationality and
autonomy, so they exist only
for human benefit
Key Implications
for Animal
Treatment
Cruelty to animals is
discouraged to prevent
human moral degradation,
but animals have no moral
rights
Immanuel Kant
Core Reason for
Human
Superiority
Only autonomous beings
with a “good will” have
intrinsic moral value
View on
Animals’
Purpose
Animals are morally
insignificant and exist to
support human development
Moral Status of
Animals
Animals lack autonomy,
rational choice, and intrinsic
value
Key Implications
for Animal
Treatment
Kindness to animals is
encouraged as it cultivates
positive traits in humans;
animals themselves have no
moral status
Rene Descartes
Core Reason for
Human
Superiority
Humans are conscious,
rational beings, while animals
are mechanistic “automata”
without awareness
View on
Animals’
Purpose
Animals are complex
machines that act on instinct
rather than consciousness
Moral Status of
Animals
Animals do not possess a soul
or consciousness and thus
have no capacity for suffering
Key Implications
for Animal
Treatment
Animals may be used without
moral consequence; their
treatment does not affect
ethical considerations
Peter Singer
Australian philosopher known for his
utilitarian perspective.
Proponent of Preference Utilitarianism,
which prioritizes actions that fulfill the
preferences or interests of those affected
Ground his morality on Sentience (those that
may have and act on preferences) and
Effective Altruism
Preference utilitarianism
favors preference
fulfillment over
happiness
Traditional utilitarianism focuses on
maximizing happiness or minimizing pain.
Preference utilitarianism, however, argues
that an action is ethical if it satisfies the
preferences of those affected.
It defines “good” outcomes (or utility) as
those that best fulfill individual preferences
rather than simply maximizing happiness or
minimizing suffering.
- Consider Individual Autonomy
- Since preference utilitarianism centers on respecting what people
want, it inherently supports individual autonomy. - By considering people’s actual preferences rather than general
assumptions about happiness, this ethical framework allows for
more personalized decision-making. - In healthcare, this means honoring patients’ wishes in medical
choices, whether it’s about undergoing certain treatments, making
end-of-life decisions, or respecting personal values even when these
do not align with what others consider “optimal.“ - Prioritizing Sentient Beings
- Singer and other preference utilitarians argue that only beings
capable of holding preferences (i.e., sentient beings) should be
included in moral considerations. - This often applies to humans and certain animals that demonstrate
preferences through behavior or choices. In this way, preference
utilitarianism can extend ethical considerations to non-human
animals, especially in contexts like animal research, where their
preferences to avoid suffering are taken into account.
Prevailing View
on Animal
Treatment
- Society generally agrees that animals deserve humane
treatment and protection from cruelty. - Despite this, it is commonly believed that human
interests are inherently more important than
those of animals. - This perspective allows for the use of animals for
food, research, and other human benefits, albeit
with some ethical guidelines. - Singer’s Principle: Equal Consideration of Interests
- Core Idea: The interests of non-human animals
should be given the same moral weight as
human interests. - Implication: Decisions about animals should not
automatically prioritize human needs or desires
over animal welfare. - Challenge to Norms: Singer’s view questions
long-standing beliefs, urging a shift towards a
more balanced ethical approach to animal
treatment.
Speciesism and Moral
Implications in
Singer’s Philosophy
- Speciesism
- Singer argues that prioritizing human interests simply
because of species is a biased stance, termed
“speciesism.” - He compares speciesism to forms of discrimination like
racism and sexism, viewing it as equally indefensible from
a moral standpoint. - Moral Parallel: Just as discrimination based on race or
gender is rejected, species-based preference should also
be questioned. - What Equal Consideration of Interests Does
(and Doesn’t) Mean - Better Animal Welfare: Singer’s principle suggests we
should avoid unnecessary suffering and provide improved
living conditions for animals, such as those in agriculture. - Not Identical Treatment: Singer clarifies that this does not
mean animals should receive the same treatment as
humans, but that their unique interests be respected (e.g.,
freedom from pain). - Application: This approach advocates for a reassessment
of practices like factory farming, animal testing, and
entertainment, aligning actions more closely with animals’
well-being.
Critiques of
Preference
Utilitarianism
- Critics argue that preference satisfaction
does not always lead to morally “good”
outcomes, as some preferences might be
misinformed or harmful. - Additionally, defining and measuring
preferences can be challenging, especially
when people may not fully understand the
long-term impacts of their choices or might
hold conflicting preferences. - Criticized for giving priority to the views of
beings capable of holding preferences (being
able actively to contemplate the future and
its interaction with the present) over those
solely concerned with their immediate
situation, a group that includes animals and
young children.
Peter Singer would argue against human
exceptionalism
- Equality Principle: Principle of equality does not require equal or identical treatment; it requires
equal consideration. This is an important distinction in his argument. He believes that the
interests of every being affected by an action are to be taken into account and given the same
weight as the like interests of any other being. - Speciesism: Singer considers that speciesism is similar to racism or sexism. Speciesism is the idea
that being human is a good enough reason for human animals to have greater moral rights than
non-human animals.
* Singer argues that this is just as arbitrary a distinction as those based on race, gender, or anything else.
3.Capacity for Suffering: Capacity for suffering as a vital benchmark for considering rights and
moral consideration.
* He argues that many non-human animals are capable of suffering in ways similar to humans, and therefore,
they should be given similar moral consideration.
* From an animal rights perspective, many forms of animal exploitation are morally indefensible given the
capacity of animals to suffer.
4.Challenging Human-Centered Ethics: Singer is known for advocating a more expansive moral
circle. He suggests that focusing ethics solely on human beings is a form of discrimination against
non-human beings.
* His utilitarian approach, which seeks to maximize happiness and reduce suffering, applies to all beings capable
of experiencing these states, not just humans
