Transcript No Slide Title

Why Philosophy?
Philosophy:
A study of the processes
governing thought and conduct.
A system of principles for the
conduct of life.
A study of human morals.
Philosophers are concerned with:
What kinds of things exist?
What can we know?
What ought I to do?
Ethics or Moral Philosophy
ETHICS
A systematic account of
right and wrong.
Ethics = morals to philosophers
You can’t choose to have philosophical
views or not - EVERYONE HAS THEM.
The question is --What are they?
What are your views based upon?
HOW SHOULD WE TREAT ANIMALS AND WHY?
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES
Aristotle
> Born 384 bce
Died 322 bce
> Considered still one of world’s
greatest minds.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES
Aristotle
> Ethical issues, including those
relating to animals, important to him.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES
Aristotle
> Student of Plato (tutor to Alexander
the Great).
>Had to flee Rome for “lack of reverence
for the gods.”
“Rationality” separate and superior to
“Emotionality”
Mind/body duality
GREAT CHAIN OF BEING
Matter -- Inert, no activity
GREAT CHAIN OF BEING
Plants -- Take in nutrition, grow, reproduce
Matter -- Inert, no activity
GREAT CHAIN OF BEING
Animals -- All below + Motility & Sensation
Plants -- Take in nutrition, grow, reproduce
Matter -- Inert, no activity
GREAT CHAIN OF BEING
Slaves/children -- All below, language, no reason
Animals -- All below + Motility & Sensation
Plants -- Take in nutrition, grow, reproduce
Matter -- Inert, no activity
GREAT CHAIN OF BEING
Free females -- All below + Little ability to Reason
Slaves/children -- All below, language, no reason
Animals -- All below + Motility & Sensation
Plants -- Take in nutrition, grow, reproduce
Matter -- Inert, no activity
GREAT CHAIN OF BEING
Free males -- All below + Ability to Reason
Free females -- All below + Little ability to Reason
Slaves/children -- All below, language, no reason
Animals -- All below + Motility & Sensation
Plants -- Take in nutrition, grow, reproduce
Matter -- Inert, no activity
GREAT CHAIN OF BEING
God -- Pure Rationality/Thought
Free males -- All below + Ability to Reason
Free females -- All below + Little ability to Reason
Slaves/children -- All below, language, no reason
Animals -- All below + Motility & Sensation
Plants -- Take in nutrition, grow, reproduce
Matter -- Inert, no activity
It is the duty of those with reason to rule
those who do not have it.
If an entity is ‘ruled by’ another, then
it must exist for the purposes of others.
Not accepted by all Greeks Pythagoras a vegetarian
(might contain souls of dead
men)
DESCARTES
> 1596 to 1650
> “I think, therefore I am.”
> Still believed to be on of world’s
greatest minds.
> World is composed of only
MATTER and INTELLECT
BODIES HAVE NO MINDS Mind/body duality
Descartes agreed w/ Aristotle that
only humans could be rational.
Therefore, animals only ‘matter,’ like
machines “automata.”
Have sensations, but no awareness of them.
Thus, a writhing, screaming dog was not
experiencing pain, merely moving like a
clock.
Descartes illustrated by pinning dogs to
a wall, eviscerating them and explaining
to onlookers that the dog’s actions were
merely mindless responses.
KANT
> 1724 - 1804
> Known for treasuring intellectual
and moral integrity.
> Profound influence on philosophical thought.
> Each person has INTRINSIC VALUE - can’t
make decisions based on utility or end result.
A GOOD END DOESN’T JUSTIFY THE MEANS
KANT:
Obligations to animals INDIRECT
If hurt an animal,
might hurt its owner
might develop a bad habit that
would lead to hurting humans.
KANT:
WHO COUNTS MORALLY?
The only individuals that count in a moral
equation are those that can reason. The basis for who
counts is rationality, not who can feel pleasure
or pain.
PETER SINGER
> Current Australian philosopher
> Famous for “Animal Liberation”
> Clear bias (brags has never been to a farm)
Argues that REASON is not the issue-the ability to SUFFER is.
> Ability to reason is arbitrary, like
skin color or sex.
> Any animal who can suffer should be
included in the moral equation.
Argues that REASON is not the issue-the ability to SUFFER is.
> Each animal in the “moral equation”
counts equally.
INDIVIDUALIST
The individual is the center of value
ETHICAL HEDONIST
Pleasure has value, pain has dis-value
So disagrees with Descartes Argues animals can suffer
Disagrees with Kant
We have DIRECT duties to animals
BE THOUGHTFUL ABOUT WORDS
“Eating meat” vs.
“Eating slaughtered non-humans”
“Meat” vs. “murdered flesh”
“Vivisection” vs. “surgery”
“What, for instance, are we to do about
genuine conflicts of interest like rats
biting slum children? I am not sure of
the answer, but the essential point is
that we do see this as a conflict of interest,
that we recognize that rats have interests
too.”
Peter Singer
UTILITARIAN
> Developed by Bentham
“The question is not can they
reason, but can they suffer?”
UTILITARIAN
> Developed by Bentham
“The question is not can they
reason, but can they suffer?”
> If count in the moral equation,
all count equally.
UTILITARIAN
> Developed by Bentham
“The question is not can they
reason, but can they suffer?”
> If count in the moral equation, all count equally
> Resolve conflicts by summing total pleasure
vs. pain.
Criticisms of Utilitarianism
1
2
3
4
Sum
A)
+3 +2 +4 +5
+14
B)
+3 -3
+10
+4 +6
Clearly A is a better solution than B.
1
2
3
4
A)
-10
-10
-10 +60
+30
B)
+7
+7
+7
+28
+7
Sum
1
2
3
4
A)
-10
-10
-10 +60
+30
B)
+7
+7
+7
+28
+7
Sum
What if 1, 2 and 3 in “A” are tortured kittens?
The DISTRIBUTION problem:
Rich, cruel & nasty aunt
Has willed her fortune to orphanage
If Utilitarian, why not kill her?
Second problem:
How quantify the factors?
Third problem:
Summing the values leads to a value
that is the property of a GROUP,
but Utilitarian Philos honors the
INDIVIDUAL.