Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
41 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Animal ethics is about coming up with a philosophical framework of... |
Who counts morally |
|
|
Instrumental value |
Something is good because it provides the means for acquiring something else of value. e.g., money, a chair |
|
|
Intrinsic value |
The inherent worth of something, independent of its value to anything else. e.g., people - this is the moral foundation for human rights regardless of race, gender, nationality, economic status |
|
|
Moral agent |
Those capable of moral reflection and choice. -people. Animals are not moral agents because not capable of moral reflection.
|
|
|
If something posesses intrinsic value then this generates what for moral agents? |
A moral duty/obligation to protect, or at least refrain from damaging it. |
|
|
Human-centric position on the moral status of animals |
-Descartes, Aquinas -Animals themselves are outside of moral concern. They were put here for our use and primary purpose is to serve us.
|
|
|
Descartes |
Human-centric position -Animals do not count morally because they do not have souls. -Thought was the basis of human life and product of human soul. Animals do not use language therefore are incapable of thought. -They have emotions but are not rational -secular |
|
|
Aquinas |
Human-centric position -Wrong to be cruel to animals but the reason has to do with human welfare, not animal welfare (treating animals poorly leads to treating people poorly). -Theological |
|
|
Animal Welfare Utilitarianism |
Bentham, Singer |
|
|
Consequentialism |
Utilitarian, Bentham View that morality of actions or institutions (laws, customs) is a function of their consequences. Evaluate action or institution in terms of the effects that flow from it. If consequences are good on a whole, action is good. |
|
|
Non-consequentialism |
Rights based, Kant
|
|
|
Jeremy Bentham |
Utilitarianism/consequentialism. -"The morally relevant question about animals is not can they reason or can they talk, But can they suffer?" -Theological and Secular arguments do not matter, all that matters is if the animal is capable of experiencing happiness and unhappiness, pleasure and pain. |
|
|
Singer's 4 philosophical principles |
Utilitarianism** 1. Concept of equality 2. Principle of equal consideration of interests 3. Speciesism 4.Sentience is necessary and sufficient for having interests |
|
|
Concept of equality |
First of Singer's philosophical principles. "All humans are equal" -Moral idea not statement of fact. Does not mean that all are equal in capability but that they deserve equal consideration of interests |
|
|
Principle of equal consideration of interests |
Second of Singer's philosophical principles. -The interests of every individual affected by an action counts just as much as the interests of every other individual affected. -Everyone's preferences counted as equal |
|
|
Speciesism |
Third of Singer's philosophical principles. -Prejudice or attitude of bias toward the interests of members of one's own species -Major issue for Singer was the exlusion of animals -argument for marginal cases |
|
|
Argument for marginal cases |
Singer on speciesism -If being rational (or autonomous or able to speak) is what permits us to deny direct moral status to animals, then we can likewise deny that status to any human that is not rational (or autonomous or able to speak). -Descartes measured rationality by speech... -We believe even those humans who are not rational have moral status, so there must be something wrong with any theory that claims they do not |
|
|
Defense against the marginal case argument |
Humans are above animals not because they are more intelligent or ration but because being humans is, in itself, a morally relevant property. -View held by those who maintain religious/worldview ethics concerning animals. |
|
|
Sentience is necessary and sufficient for having interests |
Singer's fourth philosophical principle. -sentience = consciousness, esp of pain. -necessary: a chair does not have interests because it cannot suffer -sufficient: If a being suffers there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration |
|
|
Strengths of utilitarianism |
-Intuitively possible: happiness good, pain bad -action guiding: risk/benefit analysis -impartial: everyone equal -Make the world better, do good, minimize harm |
|
|
Criticisms of Utilitarianism |
1. Is happiness/preferences the only thing that matters? (deceptive friend) 2. Are consequences all that matter? 3. Backward looking reasoning. 4. Too demanding 5. Personal relationships. 6. Pleasure associated with bad actions. |
|
|
Are consequences all that matter? |
Criticism of utilitarianism. Fundamental point: in order to determine whether an action is right or not we must look at what will happen as a result of doing it. e.g., Aunt Bertha is old and senile, is it okay to kill her for her money? |
|
|
Utilitarianism backward reasoning |
Criticism of utilitarianism E.g., promised to meet someone but a better offer (increased utility) comes along so change plans. -Utilitarianism excludes backward looking considerations and focuses only on the future. |
|
|
Rights-based approach |
Kant -Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only -People have intrinsic worth because they are rational agents capable of making their own decisions |
|
|
Kant and suffering |
Suffering is not the fundamental wrong but a consequence of the fundamental wrong |
|
|
What does Kant say the "fundamental wrong" is? |
Treating people or animals (mainly people) as a means to an end. |
|
|
Tom Reagan |
Classic objections to utilitarianism, trampling individual rights. -Subjects of a life. -Marginal case argument -Subjects of a life should not be used simply as a means to others' ends. -Eliminate meat eating, abolish animal research, abolish hunting |
|
|
What do we mean by rights? |
-The holder of rights have interests. -Rocks, chairs, etc have no rights bc they have no interests. -Question is does a holder of a right need to be able to express that right?
|
|
|
Does a holder of a right need to be able to express that right? |
Singer says if you are sentient you have interests. Regan says to heck with sentience, but do you have interests? |
|
|
Subject of a life criteria |
Any individual who has beliefs and desires; perception, memory, and a sense of the future, including their own future; an emotional life together with feelings of pleasure and pain; the ability to initiate action in pursuit of their desires and goals; a psychological identity over time; and an individual welfare in the sense that their experiential life fares will work for them logically independently of their being an object of anyone else's interests. |
|
|
According to Regan, why do people have rights? |
They fit subject of a life criteria. Most animals have similar characteristics and therefore should also have rights |
|
|
Arguments against animal rights |
-Animals cannot understand or claim rights (babies or infants?) -If animals have rights they should have the right not to be attacked in the wild (cannot claim rights against those that do not understand rights, must be a moral agent and animals are not). |
|
|
Bernie Rollin's view main characteristics |
-Production circumstances have frustrated personal ethic of farmers/traditional husbandry ethic -New social ethic about animals have emerged as a supplement to traditional concerns about cruelty, pain and suffering -There are certain social expectations about what constitutes humane treatment of animals. |
|
|
According to Rollin, what is the basis for moral respect? |
Telos - nurturing and fulfillment of the animals' natures -a nature, a function, a set of activities intrinsic to an individual of a particular species, evolutionarily determines and genetically imprinted. |
|
|
What is the genetic nature of telos? |
Set of adaptations that an animal possesses as a result of evolutionary history. Set of genetically encoded instructions that guide an animal's normal development. |
|
|
What does telos essentially amount to? |
Animals possess certain adaptations and require a certain development to flourish. The moral imperative: We should treat animals in ways that allow them to flourish according to their natures. |
|
|
Ethics of care approach |
Midgley -A moderate approach that focuses on relationships at the personal level. -Strand of feminist philosophy |
|
|
Midgley |
-Opposes the argument for moral consistency. -Believes that while we are justified in opposing racism, we are not for the same reasons justified in opposing speciesism. -Preference for members of a race is learnt, preference for members of a species is natural. -Animals don't need human rights, but a protection of habitat or in captivity treatment that respects their nature. -If we use animals, we have a moral right to care for their needs |
|
|
Midgley says husbandry must meet the following conditions: |
1. Enhance biological functioning. 2. Ensure they feel well. 3. Promote species-specific behaviours. |
|
|
Practical implications of Midgley's ideas |
-Encourage more studies of how these relationships can improve animal and human well-being and productivity. -Emphasize empathy and caring attitudes when selecting on farm staff. -Ensure that farmers have and can afford enough staff to provide the level of care they see as right. |
|
|
Concerns about the ethics of care approach |
-Does not go far beyond traditional relationships with animals (not much past human-centric approach) -What of animals with which we are not community? (wild animals) -Notion of community is fluid and precarious. -Do animals regarded as pests not deserve some protections (especially if they can also suffer or have inherent value)? |
