Transcript Chapter 8: The Ethical Treatment of Animals

Chapter 8: The Ethical Treatment of
Animals

Gaverick Matheny, “Utilitarianism and Animals”
– Matheny's main 2-part argument (part 1):
1. Being sentient is sufficient (enough) for
having interests, including being free from
pain and suffering.
2. Many nonhuman animals are sentient.
Thus (from 1 & 2),
3. Many nonhuman animals have interests,
including being free from pain and
suffering.
Chapter 8: The Ethical Treatment of
Animals

Gaverick Matheny, “Utilitarianism and Animals”
– Matheny's main 2-part argument (part 2):
3. Many nonhuman animals have interests, including
being from pain and suffering.
4. An action is morally right (permissible) only if the
like interests of all who will be affected by one’s
action are given equal weight by one’s action.
Thus (from 3 & 4 ),
5. An action is morally right only if the like interests of
all who will be affected by one’s action, including
nonhuman animals, are given equal weight by
one’s action.
Chapter 8: The Ethical Treatment of
Animals

Gaverick Matheny, “Utilitarianism and Animals”
– Matheny's tests for particular animal
experiments
• Balance of pain test: “In every case, we should
ask if the pain prevented by an experiment is
greater than the pain caused by that
experiment.” If not, experimentation is wrong.
• Infant substitution test: “Would researchers
contemplating an animal experiment be
willing...to place an orphaned infant in the
animal's place?”
Chapter 8: The Ethical Treatment of
Animals

Tom Regan, “Are Zoos Morally Defensible?”
–
A utilitarian approach to the question
• Interests of animals (e.g., their “needs, desires,
and preferences”) will figure in the moral
assessment of zoos.
• A problem with applying this approach: We
need to know about the interests of all
affected, not just the interests of animals.
• A serious implication of this problem: “the
theory requires knowledge that far exceeds
what we humans are capable of acquiring”
Chapter 8: The Ethical Treatment of
Animals

Tom Regan, “Are Zoos Morally Defensible?”
–
The rights view
•
If wild animals confined in zoos are treated with
appropriate respect, then (contrary to the
utilitarian approach), we don't have to ask about:
– The interests of those employed by zoos
– Economic benefits of zoos
– How much people learn from zoos
•
•
Animals have rights for the same reasons that
humans do.
Zoos are not defensible because they violate
animals' right to freedom.
Chapter 8: The Ethical Treatment of
Animals

Carl Cohen, “Do Animals Have Rights?”
–
What is a right?
–
• “A right (unlike an interest) is a valid claim, or
potential claim, under principles that govern
both the claimant and the target of the claim.”
Why animals do not have rights:
• Cohen's lioness & baby zebra thought
experiment
• Animals are “totally amoral...they do no
wrong, ever...In their world there are no
rights”
Chapter 8: The Ethical Treatment of
Animals

Carl Cohen, “Do Animals Have Rights?
•
•
–
“Animals cannot be the bearers of rights because
the concept of rights is essentially human; it is
rooted in, and has force within, a human moral
world.”
Note: Cohen still thinks we have obligations
towards animals, because he thinks factors other
than rights can produce obligations
Why Regan's argument for animals rights fails
• Regan's argument equivocates on “inherent
value”
– Sense 1: moral dignity
– Sense 2: being more than “just a thing”
Chapter 8: The Ethical Treatment of
Animals

Mary Anne Warren, “Human and Animal Rights
Compared”
–
The content of a right = the sphere of activity the
right protects (e.g., the content of the right to free
speech is free speech)
–
The strength of a right = the strength of reasons
required for it to be legitimately overridden (e.g., the
right to live might be stronger than the right to
vote—it may be all right to prevent someone if
doing so will save a live)
–
Warren argues that both animals and humans have
rights, but these rights differ in terms of content and
strength.
Chapter 8: The Ethical Treatment of
Animals

Mary Anne Warren, “Human and Animal Rights
Compared”
–
The rights of animals are weaker than the
corresponding rights (i.e., rights with the same
content) as humans because:
•
•
•
–
1. Humans desire liberty and life more strongly,
and
2. Humans possess moral autonomy
Note: Moral autonomy is not necessary for having
rights, according to Warren, but it can strengthen
the rights one already has.
The nonparadigm human objection and
Warren's response
Chapter 8: The Ethical Treatment of
Animals

Jordan Curnutt, “A New Argument for
Vegetarianism”
–
Part 1 of his 3-part argument:
1. Causing harm is prima facie morally wrong.
2. Killing animals causes them harm.
3. Therefore, killing animals is prima facie morally
wrong.
–
Part 2 of his 3-part argument:
3. Killing animals is prima facie morally wrong.
4. Animal-eating requires the killing of animals.
5. Therefore, animal-eating is prima facie morally
wrong.
Chapter 8: The Ethical Treatment of
Animals

Jordan Curnutt, “A New Argument for
Vegetarianism”
–
Part 3 of his 3-part argument:
5. Animal-eating is prima facie morally wrong.
6. The wrongness of animal-eating is not overridden.
7. Therefore, animal-eating is ultima facie morally
wrong.
–
Objection to Part 3: the wrongness of animaleating is overridden
•
•
Appeals to tradition, aesthetics, convenience,
human welfare
Curnutt's reply