Your grandfather’s Alzheimer’s has progressed to such a degree that his mental capabilities are no more than those of a lab rat. Scientists are in need of test subjects, so your grandpa is shipped off to a facility where they test unregulated amounts of drugs, makeup, and shampoos on him. R. G. Frey uses this example of testing on cognitively impaired humans throughout his piece, “Moral Standing, the Value of Lives, and Speciesism.”. This paper will outline Frey’s arguments on why human life generally has more value than animal life and highlight the exceptions to the rule that justify the mentioned scenario, while also presenting objections to the unequal value thesis and evaluating those oppositions with respect to humans with cognitive disabilities
…show more content…
He attempts to justify that there is no way a rabbit can reach the same potentiality for enrichment as a human, citing human observation and knowledge.1 However, you cannot only view the world from a human perspective, since that will lead to obvious biases in that species’ favor. To me, it seems Frey’s richness factor can be replaced with Paul Taylor definition of flourishing in his piece “The Ethics of Respect for Nature.” That is, an organism’s ability to grow to its full potential and live out its life is flourishing. Anything that is alive can therefore flourish, have well-being, and possess inherent worth.2 Taylor subscribes to a biocentric view of the world, where humans have moral obligations to plants and animals since they are part of Earth’s environment. Since humans are moral agents and living things possess inherent worth, any part of the biotic community is deserving of our concern and consideration.2 If we are to determine the value of life through this perspective of flourishing instead of Frey’s proposed “richness” then we can say for certain that testing on cognitively disabled people is wrong and should never be allowed. The same holds true for animals, since they too have an equal opportunity to flourish. Testing on, killing, torturing, or eating anything that can feel pain …show more content…
If their lives have less value than that of humans, and their deaths would benefit humans, then killing and eating them is justified.1 The joy humans feel when eating meat outweighs the negatives of extinguishing of animal life, whether humane or not. My view on this issue closely aligns with those of Alastair Norcross, the author of “Puppies, Pigs and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases.” Eating meat that is the result of factory farming is morally wrong, and a moral person shouldn’t be taking pleasure from the products of torture.3 Almost no one can feign ignorance of the issues; videos of abuses have surfaced online, or been broadcasted through documentaries and by PETA, so anyone with access to social media or the Internet is aware that these methods of slaughter are not ethical. In the United States, the overabundance of food options and grocery stores indicates that we no longer need to hunt and gather to survive. Meat has become a luxury item since the vitamins and proteins it may provide us with can be gleaned from other sources. Frey cites animals as having lesser value because of their lack of agency, however, the mere fact that animals cannot be moral agents does not exclude them from being moral patients. Humans need to exercise their agency, be morally responsible and give animals consideration because of their status as moral patients and their ability to suffer.3 This
He attempts to justify that there is no way a rabbit can reach the same potentiality for enrichment as a human, citing human observation and knowledge.1 However, you cannot only view the world from a human perspective, since that will lead to obvious biases in that species’ favor. To me, it seems Frey’s richness factor can be replaced with Paul Taylor definition of flourishing in his piece “The Ethics of Respect for Nature.” That is, an organism’s ability to grow to its full potential and live out its life is flourishing. Anything that is alive can therefore flourish, have well-being, and possess inherent worth.2 Taylor subscribes to a biocentric view of the world, where humans have moral obligations to plants and animals since they are part of Earth’s environment. Since humans are moral agents and living things possess inherent worth, any part of the biotic community is deserving of our concern and consideration.2 If we are to determine the value of life through this perspective of flourishing instead of Frey’s proposed “richness” then we can say for certain that testing on cognitively disabled people is wrong and should never be allowed. The same holds true for animals, since they too have an equal opportunity to flourish. Testing on, killing, torturing, or eating anything that can feel pain …show more content…
If their lives have less value than that of humans, and their deaths would benefit humans, then killing and eating them is justified.1 The joy humans feel when eating meat outweighs the negatives of extinguishing of animal life, whether humane or not. My view on this issue closely aligns with those of Alastair Norcross, the author of “Puppies, Pigs and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases.” Eating meat that is the result of factory farming is morally wrong, and a moral person shouldn’t be taking pleasure from the products of torture.3 Almost no one can feign ignorance of the issues; videos of abuses have surfaced online, or been broadcasted through documentaries and by PETA, so anyone with access to social media or the Internet is aware that these methods of slaughter are not ethical. In the United States, the overabundance of food options and grocery stores indicates that we no longer need to hunt and gather to survive. Meat has become a luxury item since the vitamins and proteins it may provide us with can be gleaned from other sources. Frey cites animals as having lesser value because of their lack of agency, however, the mere fact that animals cannot be moral agents does not exclude them from being moral patients. Humans need to exercise their agency, be morally responsible and give animals consideration because of their status as moral patients and their ability to suffer.3 This