Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Moral Community & Moral Status
Moral Community & Moral StatusSinger, ‘Speciesism and Moral Status?’
Dr. Clea F. Rees
Centre for Lifelong LearningCardiff University
Autumn 2013
Moral Community & Moral StatusOutline
Virtue
Vice
Moral
Imm
oral
Ethical
Unethica
lPe
rmissi
ble
Impermissible
Outline
Singer’s Thesis
Singer’s Premises
Intelligent Animals
Singer’s Logic
EvaluationRecapHow Good is Singer’s Argument?
Rights vs. Welfare
Moral Community & Moral StatusSinger’s Thesis
Virtue
Vice
Moral
Imm
oral
Ethical
Unethica
lPe
rmissi
ble
Impermissible
Singer’s Thesis
Moral Community & Moral StatusSinger’s Thesis
Virtue
Vice
Moral
Imm
oral
Ethical
Unethica
lPe
rmissi
ble
Impermissible
Singer’s Thesis
Definition (Speciesism)Treating being A differently from being B solely because A and Bare members of different species.Speciesism is intended to be analogous to:
Sexism:I Treating human A differently from human B solely because A
and B are members of different sexes.Racism:
I Treating human A differently from human B solely because Aand B are members of different races.
Other comparable forms of unjustified discrimination.
Moral Community & Moral StatusIntelligent Animals
Virtue
Vice
Moral
Imm
oral
Ethical
Unethica
lPe
rmissi
ble
Impermissible
Intelligent Animals
Alex Koko (with Smoky) RicoGrey Parrot Gorilla Border CollieLanguage Language Word RecognitionConcepts Emotion Memory
Moral?
Moral Community & Moral StatusIntelligent Animals
Virtue
Vice
Moral
Imm
oral
Ethical
Unethica
lPe
rmissi
ble
Impermissible
Intelligent Animals
I Caledonian crow using tool tofeed
I Woodpecker finch uses thesame trick
I Japanese crow cracks walnutsin safety
Clea F. Rees R. M. Singer, ‘Speciesism and Moral Status?’
— 1 of 4 —
Moral Community & Moral StatusIntelligent Animals
Virtue
Vice
Moral
Imm
oral
Ethical
Unethica
lPe
rmissi
ble
Impermissible
Intelligent Animals
Dolphins:I intelligentI playfulI socialI cooperativeI moral?
Moral Community & Moral StatusEvaluation
Recap
Virtue
Vice
Moral
Imm
oral
Ethical
Unethica
lPe
rmissi
ble
Impermissible
EvaluationRecap
Arguments
ValidReasoning
TruePremises
SoundArguments
Moral Community & Moral StatusRights vs. Welfare
Virtue
Vice
Moral
Imm
oral
Ethical
Unethica
lPe
rmissi
ble
Impermissible
Rights vs. Welfare
Hare’s ViewBeings with typical human capacities can suffer in ways that beingswho lack those capacities cannot.
I Pain/suffering/enjoyment get equal moral consideration.I But the suffering of humans can far exceed that of (most/all)
non-human animals.
I But, says Singer:I Severely cognitively impaired humans cannot suffer in the ways
typical human adults can.I Is it acceptable to treat them as property, for example?
Moral Community & Moral StatusRights vs. Welfare
Virtue
Vice
Moral
Imm
oral
Ethical
Unethica
lPe
rmissi
ble
Impermissible
Rights vs. Welfare
Singer’s ProposalRegard moral status as a matter of degree which varies withcapacity for suffering, enjoyment and achievement. Individualanimals will fall somewhere on this continuum according to theirindividual capacities.
I Pain/suffering/enjoyment get equal moral consideration.I Death/life: greater moral significance for beings with greater
cognitive capacities.
Moral Community & Moral StatusRights vs. Welfare
Virtue
Vice
Moral
Imm
oral
Ethical
Unethica
lPe
rmissi
ble
Impermissible
Rights vs. Welfare
Steinbock’s ViewThe suffering of beings with typical human capacities constitutes agreater harm than the suffering of beings who lack them.
I The disvalue of suffering cannot be separated from the valueof the sufferer’s life.
I The necessity of a being’s suffering must be judged in light ofthese differences.
I How we respond emotionally to beings who lack typicalhuman cognitive capacities affects their moral status.
I That severely cognitively impaired humans are dependent onus means we owe them a special degree of care.
Moral Community & Moral StatusRights vs. Welfare
Virtue
Vice
Moral
Imm
oral
Ethical
Unethica
lPe
rmissi
ble
Impermissible
Rights vs. WelfareHare, Singer, Steinbock:
I Disagree about the moral status of non-human animals.I Basically agree on what matters morally:
I suffering/enjoyment.I So if we want to know if it is acceptable to carry out medical
experiments on rabbits or chimps or people, say, we need tobalance the benefits to other beings against thesubjects’ suffering.
I If the benefits are great enough, we are justified in sacrificingthe subjects’ interests.
I The subjects’ interests must still be protected as far aspossible.
e.g. Subjects must be anaesthetised where appropriate, painminimised, and reasonable living conditions assured.
Clea F. Rees R. M. Singer, ‘Speciesism and Moral Status?’
— 2 of 4 —
Moral Community & Moral StatusRights vs. Welfare
Virtue
Vice
Moral
Imm
oral
Ethical
Unethica
lPe
rmissi
ble
Impermissible
Rights vs. Welfare
We affirm that all ceta-ceans as persons have theright to life, liberty andwell-being.
Declaration of Rights for Cetaceans:Whales and Dolphins
Moral Community & Moral StatusRights vs. Welfare
Virtue
Vice
Moral
Imm
oral
Ethical
Unethica
lPe
rmissi
ble
Impermissible
Rights vs. Welfare
. . . not larger cages, butempty cages. . .
— Regan 1997, 107
Moral Community & Moral StatusRights vs. Welfare
Virtue
Vice
Moral
Imm
oral
Ethical
Unethica
lPe
rmissi
ble
Impermissible
Rights vs. Welfare
Regan’s ApproachAll non-human animals, like all human animals, have rights.
I Rights “trump” welfare.I Given the rights of non-human animals, experimenting on
them is wrong regardless of the benefits to other beings.I The balance of harm to benefit is therefore irrelevant.
Moral Community & Moral StatusRights vs. Welfare
Virtue
Vice
Moral
Imm
oral
Ethical
Unethica
lPe
rmissi
ble
Impermissible
Rights vs. Welfare
Who has rights?
Moral Community & Moral StatusRights vs. Welfare
Virtue
Vice
Moral
Imm
oral
Ethical
Unethica
lPe
rmissi
ble
Impermissible
Rights vs. Welfare
Who has which rights?
Moral Community & Moral StatusRights vs. Welfare
Virtue
Vice
Moral
Imm
oral
Ethical
Unethica
lPe
rmissi
ble
Impermissible
Rights vs. Welfare
What do these rights involve?I Recall Thomson and Little:
rights are alwayscircumscribed.
Clea F. Rees R. M. Singer, ‘Speciesism and Moral Status?’
— 3 of 4 —
Moral Community & Moral StatusRights vs. Welfare
Virtue
Vice
Moral
Imm
oral
Ethical
Unethica
lPe
rmissi
ble
Impermissible
Rights vs. Welfare
What do these rights imply?
Moral Community & Moral StatusRights vs. Welfare
Virtue
Vice
Moral
Imm
oral
Ethical
Unethica
lPe
rmissi
ble
Impermissible
Rights vs. Welfare
What do these rights imply?
Moral Community & Moral StatusRights vs. Welfare
Virtue
Vice
Moral
Imm
oral
Ethical
Unethica
lPe
rmissi
ble
Impermissible
Rights vs. Welfare
Clea F. Rees R. M. Singer, ‘Speciesism and Moral Status?’
— 4 of 4 —
