ENPHIL - Midterm - 2. Animal Ethics

Covers the second section on the midterm study guide that looks over animal ethics.

What is the indirect duties argument?

* The indirect duties argument is an argument used to support the claim that we have moral obligations to non-human animals.
* It argues that our moral duties to other humans imply indirect duties to animals, because how we treat animals affects how we treat humans.

Difference between direct and indirect duty:

* A direct duty is an obligation that directly applies to a particular subject or object. Duty owed because the being has moral status.
* An indirect duty is an obligation that arises as a result of some other duty. Duty Owed in virtue of the fact that some other being has moral status.

Why does one advancing the argument have the burden of proof?

* The indirect duties argument is a controversial claim that challenges the status quo.
* Therefore, the person advancing the argument has the burden of proof to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim.

How does one defend the argument?

* One can defend the indirect duties argument by providing evidence that our treatment of animals has significant effects on human interests.

How \n do the first two defenses fail?

* The first two defenses, that animal interests are not significant and that animal interests can be overridden by human interests, fail because they assume that human interests are always more important than animal interests.
* This assumption is challenged by the fact that animals can experience pain and suffering and have their own interests.

How does the third defense lead to the problem of marginal cases?

* The third defense, or the rationality argument, claims that moral duties are owed only to rational beings.


* This argument leads to marginal cases as any morally relevant characteristic that we think shows we have no duties to animals will also entail we have no duties to some humans (such as babies or the disabled.)

What is the problem of marginal cases?

* The problem of marginal cases is the difficulty in determining which beings have moral status and to what degree.
* It arises when we try to draw a clear line between beings that are worthy of moral consideration and those that are not.

Which kinds of views will the argument be most effective against?

* The indirect duties argument will be most effective against views that claim that animals have no moral status or that their interests can always be overridden by human interests.

What is Singer’s equal consideration argument?

* Singer's equal consideration argument is an argument for animal rights.
* It holds that we should give equal consideration to the interests of all beings that can experience pleasure and pain, regardless of their species.

What does Singer mean by ‘equal consideration of equal interests’?

* Singer means that we should give equal weight to the interests of all beings that can experience pleasure and pain, regardless of their species.

Why does Singer think that equal consideration must mean equal consideration of \n equal interests?

* Singer thinks that speciesism is equally morally bad as racism because both involve discrimination based on arbitrary criteria.

What are Singer’s views on our obligations to animals, and how does that relate to \n his views on vegetarianism and animal experimentation?

* Singer believes that we have moral obligations to animals because they can experience pleasure and pain.
* This relates to his views on vegetarianism and animal experimentation because he believes that it is wrong to kill and exploit animals for our own purposes.

What is the tea cup argument?

* Argues against utilitarianism and Singers equal consideration argument.
* Claims that the value is not seated with the sentient being, but the interests that it is able to have.
* The teacup analogy is used to show that while sentient creatures are the teacup, what really matters is the liquid within the teacup, or interests.

How does \n Regan use the case of Aunt Bea?

* Regan uses the case of Aunt Bea to illustrate the case against the equal consideration argument.
* If we treat interests equally, it would be morally ok to kill Aunt Bea in the thought experiment.

What is it to treat something as a mere means?

* “To treat someone as a mere thing, useful only to your own goals. That is to try and get them to act in a way that, if it was up to them, they would never act. It is to violate their consent.”

What is Regan’s view?

* Animals have dignity and should be treated as ends in themselves.
* If a being should be treated as an end in itself, not as a mere means, then it should have rights.
* Animals should have the same rights given to humans.

How is a rights view different from Singer’s view?

* A rights view holds that animals have moral rights that should be respected, while Singer's view is that animals should be given equal consideration to their interests.

Why might someone think animals are not ends in themselves?

* Someone might think animals are not ends in themselves because they believe that only humans have moral status and inherent value.
* Because we choose what happens to animals, such as taking them to the doctor when they are sick due to their lack of comprehension, an animal does not decide what its ends are, we do.

What is the first argument against the idea that animals have rights? - The Choice Argument

* Animals cannot exercise their rights, or have freedom of choice or responsibility, thus animals do not have rights.

What is the second \n argument? - Duties Argument

* Only Beings with duties have rights, and because animals do not have duties, they cannot have rights.

What are some troubling implications of the view that animals don’t have rights?

* troubling implications include the idea that it is morally acceptable to use animals for our own purposes, regardless of their well-being.

What are some troubling implications of the view that animals do have rights?

* troubling implications include the idea that we may be required to give up certain human activities, such as meat consumption or animal experimentation, in order to respect the rights of animals.

Does denying the claim that animals don not have rights mean that they are not entitled \n to any consideration?

* No, denying the claim that animals do not have rights does not mean that they are not entitled to any consideration.
* Singer's view, for example, is that animals should be given equal consideration to their interests, despite them not having rights in his view.

What is Donovan’s argument?

* Donovan argues that the standpoint of reason and rationality, something both singer and Regan use in their arguments, is a form of male domination.
* Donovan claims that women have a differing perspective of men, saying that men think rationally, and women think “sentimentality.”
* Thus, singer and Regans take are only from the masculine perspective.

What are some weaknesses of Donovan’s \n argument?

* Not only does Donovan’s argument seem extremely bigoted and offensive to women, assuming that they cannot be rational, Donovan argument falls apart when we consider that in order to make the argument in the first place, she must have been reasoning, something she claims women do not do.
* Domination to decide what is a form of Domination.