Debate topics
Animal rights
Singer = utilitarian
wanted to extend basic principle of equality to other species
Objection to Singer
because non-human animals are different from humans, we cannot extend principle of equality to them
Singer reply to objection
extending principle of equality to non-human animals doesn’t require extending the same rights
Question:
Why shouldn’t we base our claims for equality on actual equality between the entities in question?
This would provide grounds for unequal treatment on the basis of things like intelligence, which is not better than unequal treatment on the basis of race, sex, etc
We don’t have absolute evidence that differences in intelligence, talent, do not run along line of things like race.
Why does Singer think that the principle of equality (impartiality) extends to non-human animals?
Singer = utilitarian
committed to principle of impartiality
capacity for suffering triggers this right to equal consideration
Why suffering?
animals can suffer
animals would prefer to not suffer
animals have interests
all interests are given the same consideration
therefore animals should be given the right to same consideration
sentience?
capacity to suffer or experience enjoyment or happiness
speciesism
discrimination on the basis of species
we are speciesist when we
eat animals
tolerate methods of meat production that confine animals in cramped, unsuitable conditions
experiment on animals to test safety of substances for human use
Tom Regan - social
note: indirect duty is a duty to act in a way that benefits someone or something, but where the primary goal is to fulfill a different duty to someone else
Some argue we only have indirect duties to animals because
Animals don’t feel pain
Only human pain matters
Crude contractarian view
Rawlsian contractarian view
Regan rejects each of these
Just because you don’t feel the pain animals feel doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist
Pain is pain wherever it occurs
Contractarianism remains deficient: it systematically denies that we have direct duties to those human beings who do not have a sense of justice
young children or mentally retarded humans may not have a sense of justice
not true in the case of these humans, therefore cannot rationally deny the same in case of animals
Wild Animal
K strategists = protect their genes by restricting reproduction to a small number of cared-for offspring
R strategists = protect genes by producing large numbers of uncared-for offspring
Johanssen - utility
wants R → K
a life thats filled with suffering and ends shortly after birth is not a flourishing one, and it may not be worth living
most r strategists live lives that are filled with suffering and end shortly after birth
most sentient individuals born into the world are r-strategists
most sentient individuals born into the world do not live flourishing lives, and their lives may not be worth living
Are Humans More Important than Non-Human Animals
Target View
We have some duties to other animals, yet none so strong that they should cause us any serious inconvenience
Justification for target view
Because human beings are more important than other animals
Problem with justification for target view
the view that humans are more important than other animals is
How did people arrive at the idea that humans are more important than animals?
mistaking two separate ideas
having some property makes you appropriate for moral standing
some non-human animals don’t have certain property
differences in nature → differences in degrees of moral standing
Korsgaard
Humans have duties to non-human animals but none so strong as to seriously inconvenience us
What is wrong with thinking that humans are more important than the other animals?
Korsgaard thinks this view is nonsensical, importance is tethered
Korsgaard offers conception of absolute importance
absolute importance = being of relative importance to everyone
x is good for you
x is good from everyones point of view
x is good absolutely