PHL-101-A Final

1. Give the best argument you can for the conclusion that, in most cases, eating animals is morally wrong. Be sure to make clear what moral principle your argument depends on. At the end, in just two sentences, consider how someone might reasonably object to your argument and give a response.

In most cases, eating animals is morally wrong when viewed as being self autonomous, holding moral status, and being equal with humans. Animals have proven to have autonomy, such as monkeys stacking boxes to reach a goal. These self autonomous actions prove that they have moral status. Moral status does not need to align with human interest, and requires the holding of moral status, consideration of sense and utility trumping sense of rights possession. As equality is an equal moral principle, it is important to consider animals and humans on the same level. An objection someone might argue is that humans and animals are not on the same level. They could say that animals only matter when regarded in relation to humans with their appeal to species. This can be refuted by saying that objection isn’t valid due to the argument being based on intuition, only saying that we “feel” we are better than animals.

2. Give the best argument you can for the conclusion that the way animals’ moral status is currently viewed in the U.S. is wrong. How might someone reasonably object to your argument and what is your response?

The way animals’ moral status is currently viewed in the U.S. is wrong as we view them without equal consideration. Equal consideration sense says that the being deserves equal consideration of their interests, with sentience being required. Animals are sentient beings, but we do not treat them with equal consideration, which disregards their moral status. Someone could reasonably object to this arguement by saying due to indirect duty views, animals hold no moral status with how they are viewed in relation to humans. This can be refuted as needlessly harming animals is more clear than whether the consequences of indirect duty views hold up.

1. Give the universalizing version of Kant’s categorical imperative. (1)

   • Kant’s categorical imperative says before acting, consider if your action could be a rule that everyone should follow without contradiction

   • Universal command; only act on maxims that can be universalized

2. Explain the most serious weakness of Mill’s theory. Give an example of a situation in which the weakness might show up. (3)

   • Egoism might occur, one may only focus on own consequences

   • Principle of Utility focuses on everyone

3. On Kant’s ethical theory, is it morally acceptable for a baker to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple? Explain. (3)

   • No, Kant argues that action must be done with moral value

   • An action is morally right AND the intention is to do what is right (respect for moral duty)

   • Right action goes in accord with the categorical imperative

4. When Aristotle argues that most virtues are a mean in between two extremes, what does that mean? Explain and give an example. (3)

   • Virtues are a mean between vice of deficiency and vice of excess

   • Ex: VOD: cowardness, virtue: courage, VOE: rashness

   • Having virtues makes you a better person, having vices makes you a worse person

5. Explain how one gains and loses virtues according to Aristotle. (3)

   • Vices & virtues are habits or states of character

     1. Gained & lost in the same way

   • Virtue is developed when it feels the best when doing it

6. What is ethical relativism? Why might it seem to be an appropriate view? (3)

   • Ethical relativism: there are no objective moral standards. Ethics is completely dependent on culture

   • Ethical relativism makes an ethical claim, making them normative to some

     1. Can't be proven or disproven (how things ought to be)

7. Briefly explain two reasons for thinking ethical relativism is wrong. (3)

   • Cultural differences

     1. Different cultures have different moral codes; no “truth” in morality

   • Saying other cultures are inferior to our own

     1. We decide what is right/wrong based on the standards of our society

8. Where do we tend to go wrong in trying to understand other animals, according to the selection we read from de Waal’s book? (1,3)

   • Measure human intelligence vs animal intelligence

   • Leads to underestimating animals’ capacities (emotions, problem solving, cooperation)

9. What does it mean to say that not only humans but all sentient beings deserve equal consideration of their interests? (1)

   • Similar interests count equally

   • Not all beings get the same treatment (not all humans should be treated the same)

   • Does not apply to all animals

     1. Sentience is important; some feelings, consciousness of pain/pleasure is taken into account

10. Give a brief argument for the conclusion that all sentient beings deserve equal consideration of their interests. (3)

    • Since equal consideration is based on relationships, the obligations to others vary 

      1. Stronger bond = stronger obligation, weaker bond = weaker obligation

    • Incorrect regarding negative obligations (i.e avoid killing, restricting liberty, causing bodily harm, etc.)

      1. We only apply this strength to those we are close to 

      2. Could lead to a justification of discrimination

11. Give three specific consequences that a utilitarian could use in arguing that factory farms are unethical. (3)

    • Maximizes good, minimizes bad; taking into account everyone will be affected (including the animals themselves)

    • Take into account long and short term consequences

12. How does Frey justify the idea that not all lives have equal value? (3)

    • Frey argues that the quality and richness of a life, primarily determined by a being's capacity for self-awareness, complex thought, and meaningful relationships, significantly impacts the moral value of that life, thus placing human lives, with their greater cognitive abilities, as inherently more valuable than animal lives. 

    • Quality of life, whether person has agency (coherence) and speciesism

13. Explain how someone could agree with Frey that not all lives have equal value for the individuals living them and yet still adopt DeGrazia’s principle of equal consideration of interests. (3)

    • Frey argues that the value of life is based on the quality of life

    • Those who are handicapped, infants, mentally handicapped have less function, therefore, have less value

    • Just because they have less quality of life doesn’t mean they deserve any less consideration of their interests (love, happiness, etc)

      1. Those with a worse circumstance might need more consideration

14. If someone objects to the idea that animals deserve moral consideration by saying, “Humans are more intelligent than other animals,” how might someone like DeGrazia best respond? (1,3)

    • DeGrazia would best respond that animals can do very similar intelligent things as well

      1. Ability to reason, moral agency, tool users/makers, emotions, create art

      2. Give examples of either ^

15. Explain a couple of the facts about farmed animals’ characteristics or abilities that are relevant to the moral claim that our current practices do not treat these animals appropriately. Be sure to explain why these characteristics/abilities are relevant. (3)

    • Farmed animals’ genetic defects and immense cruelty that hinders their ability to live proves current farm practices do not treat animals appropriately. 

    • Farm animals’ genetic defects hinder their ability to be cognitive, and thus remove their ability to live autonomously. 

    • The immense cruelty they face such as living in compact, overcrowded and unhygienic farms removes their moral status. 

    • These characteristics are relevant as if people were treated in the same way that farm animals are, society would condemn it and consider it wrong when applied. 

16. Why are social contract arguments like Narveson’s problematic as a basis for moral rights? (3)

    • Ethics is based on an agreement (usually an implicit agreement) 

    • Assuming we have rational, self-interested individuals, ethics arises as an agreement to give up certain liberties as long as others do 

17. Some people enjoy spending an afternoon fishing and defend their recreational choice saying, “I throw the fish I catch back. I don’t kill them.” If we adopt a perspective of equal consideration of interests, does throwing the fish back make their activity morally acceptable?

    • No, it does not, equal consideration requires the fish to have sentience. 

    • Since the fish is sentient, the activity is morally unacceptable. 

    • Comparatively, if a person was deprived of oxygen for a few seconds and then given it back, it would be seen as torture.