Animals
Document Sample


Animal Rights
Broad View - Animals have the same moral worth that humans have, and the
moral obligations we have to animals are the same that we have to humans.
Narrow View - Animals have no moral worth, and we have no moral obligations
to them.
Moderate View - Animals have moral worth, but it is less than the moral worth
that humans have. We have moral obligations to animals, but these obligations
are weaker than the obligations we have to humans.
Animal View - Animals have moral worth, but it is more than the moral worth
that humans have. We have moral obligations to animals, and these
obligations are stronger than the obligations we have to humans.
Narrow View
R. D. Guthrie's Argument
1. How animals treat other animals is not a moral issue.
2. How animals treat humans is not a moral issue.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
.: 3. How humans treat animals is not (inherently) a
moral issue.
.: 4. Animals have no moral worth, and we have no
moral obligations to them.
R. D. Guthrie
Mistreating animals can still be morally wrong
because:
Animals can be the property of person's who
do have moral worth.
Animals can be instrumentally valuable in
promoting human welfare.
R. D. Guthrie
Limitations
Implies that it is morally permissible to mistreat
unowned animals that are not instrumental in
promoting human welfare.
Implies that it is morally permissible for animal
owners to mistreat their own animals that are not
instrumental in promoting human welfare.
R. D. Guthrie
1. How animals treat other animals is not a moral issue.
2. How animals treat people is not a moral issue.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
.: 3. How people treat animals is not (inherently) a
moral issue.
.: 4. Animals have no moral worth, and we have no
moral obligations to them.
R. D. Guthrie
Objection
1. How infants treat other infants is not a moral issue.
2. How infants treat other humans is not a moral issue.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
.: 3. How humans treat infants is not (inherently) a
moral issue.
.: 4. Infants have no moral worth, and we have no
moral obligations to them.
Narrow View
Human Argument
1. Moral worth is a function of being human.
2. Only humans are human.
---------------------------------------------------------------
.: 3. Only humans have moral worth.
.: 4. Animals have no moral worth, and we have
no moral obligations to them.
Moral Worth Is a Function of Being
Human
Moral Worth Is a Function of Being
Human
Moral Worth Is a Function of Being
Human
Moral Worth Is a Function of Being
Human
Peter Singer
"Pain and suffering are bad and should be
prevented or minimized, irrespective of the
race, sex or species of the being that
suffers....Pains of the same intensity and
duration are equally bad, whether felt by
humans or animals."
Peter Singer
• Racism - Favoring the interests of one being over
another solely on the basis of a difference in race.
• Sexism - Favoring the interests of one being over
another solely on the basis of a difference in sex.
• Speciesism - Favoring the interests of one being
over another solely on the basis of a difference in
species.
Human Argument
Limitations
• Implies speciesism.
• Implies that "higher" beings, such as God, angels,
and Martians, have no moral worth.
• Implies that it is morally permissible to abuse or
torture animals for the mere fun of it.
Moderate View
Capacities Argument
1. Moral worth is a function of a being's capacity for intelligence,
rationality, self awareness, suffering, and moral reasoning.
2. Some animals have these capacities but humans have these
capacities to a greater extent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.: 3. Some animals have moral worth, but it is less than the moral
worth that humans have.
.: 4. We have moral obligations to some animals, but these
obligations are weaker than the obligations we have to humans
Capacities Argument
Advantages
• Does not imply speciesism.
• Does not imply that "higher" beings, such as God, angels, and
Martians, have no moral worth.
• Does not imply that it is morally permissible to abuse or torture
animals for the mere fun of it.
• Does not imply that we should be morally indifferent between
driving over a mouse and driving over a child.
Moral Worth
Moral Worth
What is morally special
about a being's
capacity for
intelligence, rationality,
self awareness,
suffering, and moral
reasoning rather than
its leaping ability,
sense of smell, and
capacity to bark?
Moral Worth
Moral Worth
Moral Worth
Moral Worth
Capacities Argument
1. Moral worth is a function of a being's capacity for intelligence,
rationality, self awareness, suffering, and moral reasoning.
2. Some animals have these capacities but humans have these
capacities to a greater extent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.: 3. Some animals have moral worth, but it is less than the moral
worth that humans have.
.: 4. We have moral obligations to some animals, but these
obligations are weaker than the obligations we have to humans.
Capacities Argument
Limitations
• It is not clear why moral worth should be a function of a being's
capacity for intelligence, rationality, self awareness, suffering,
and moral reasoning, as opposed to some other set of
characteristics.
• If moral worth is a function of a being's capacity for intelligence,
rationality, self awareness, suffering, and moral reasoning, not
all humans have these characteristics to a greater extent in
comparison to all other animals.
Moderate View
Animals have moral worth, but it is less than
the moral worth that humans have. We have
moral obligations to animals, but these
obligations are weaker than the obligations
we have to humans.
Moderate View
Objection
1. The Moderate View is correct only if there is a set of
characteristics that all humans have to a greater
degree in relation to all other animals.
2. There is no set of characteristics that all humans
have to a greater degree in relation to all other
animals.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
.: 3. The Moderate View is not correct.
Animal Rights
Broad View - Animals have the same moral worth that humans
have, and the moral obligations we have to animals are the
same that we have to humans.
Narrow View - Animals have no moral worth, and we have no
moral obligations to them.
Moderate View - Animals have moral worth, but it is less than
the moral worth that humans have. We have moral obligations
to animals, but these obligations are weaker than the
obligations we have to humans.
Animal Rights
What is the moral status of (nonhuman)
animals and what moral obligations do we
have to them?
Animal Rights
Any plausible account of the characteristics
that determine moral worth will have the
consequence that some but not all humans
have these characteristics to a greater extent
in comparison to some animals.
Moderate Animal View
Some humans have greater moral worth
compared to some animals, and some
animals have greater moral worth compared
to some humans. In some cases the moral
obligations we have to some animals is
weaker than the moral obligations we have to
some humans, and in some cases the moral
obligations are greater.
Animal Rights
Animal Rights
Animal Rights
Get documents about "