PHI 2630 1st Edition Lecture 9 Outline of Last Lecture I Lecture Notes a Moral Agents vs Moral Patients II Carl Cohen Do Animals Have Rights a Two Reasons for Answering No b Rights c Objections to Tom Regan Outline of Current Lecture II Animal Abolitionism Gary Francione III Direct vs Indirect Moral Standing IV Moral Agents and Moral Patients V Carl Cohen Do Animals Have Rights VI Tom Regan Are Zoos Morally Defensible a Utilitarian Approach b Rights Approach Current Lecture a Animal Abolitionism Gary Francione i The view that we are required to end the human ownership of all animals all sentient beings have a right not to be treated as the property of others b Direct vs Indirect Moral Standing i Something which has a direct moral standing deserves moral consideration because of a feature s which are independent of its relation to other things beings Direct moral standing related to inherent intrinsic value ii Something which has an indirect moral standing deserves moral consideration only because it is related to something that has a direct moral standing material possessions etc c Moral Agents and Moral Patients i Moral Agents have a variety of sophisticated abilities including in particular the ability to bring impartial moral principles to bear on the determination of what all considered morally ought to be done and having made this determination to freely choose or fail to choose to act as morality as they conceive it requires Because moral agents have these These notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor s lecture GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes not as a substitute abilities it is fair to hold them morally accountable for what they do assuming that the circumstances of their acting as they do in a particular case do not dictate otherwise T Regan A case for animal rights ii Moral Patients In contrast to moral agents moral patients lack the prerequisites that would enable them to control their own behavior in ways that would make them morally accountable for what they do A moral patient lacks the ability to formulate let alone bring to bear moral principles in deliberating about which one among a number of possible acts it would be right or proper to perform Moral patients in a word cannot do what is right nor can they do what is wrong Granted what they do may be detrimental to the welfare of others they may for example bring about acute suffering or even death and granted it may be necessary in any given case for moral agents to use force or violence to prevent such harm being done either in self defense or in defense of others But even when a moral patient causes significant harm to another the moral patient has not done what is wrong Only moral agents can do what is wrong Human infants young children and the mentally deranged or enfeebled of all ages are paradigm cases of human moral patients More controversial is whether human fetuses and future generations of human beings qualify as moral patients It is enough for our purposes however that some humans are reasonably viewed in this way T Regan A case for animal rights 1 Sentient animals are moral patients too along with children disabled people etc d Carl Cohen Do Animals Have Rights i Animals may have interests but not rights ii Not all obligations arise from rights 1 A host has obligations to her guests that do not stem from the guests rights iii The concept of rights is essentially human 1 The lion does not violate the rights of the zebra it eats iv Possible sources of rights God membership in a moral community intuition moral self rule v Two senses of inherent value The one that applies to animals doesn t entail rights e Tom Regan Are Zoos Morally Defensible i Utilitarian approach to the question we are not capable of acquiring all the relevant information because this approach requires far more information it does not yield a determinate answer to the question of defensibility of zoos 1 Requires that we consider the interests of everyone affected b what we do and that we weigh equal interests equally Peter Singer s ideology was a utilitarian one Singer argues that a prejudice similar to that of discounting a woman s opinion merely because she is a woman lies at the heart of moral anthropocentrism which Singer argues denominates speciesism 2 From a utilitarian perspective there are additional questions that need to be answered before we are justified in answering our central question Not only must we insist that the interests of captive animals be taken into account and be counted equitably but we must also do the same for all those people whose interests are affected by having zoos To make an informed moral assessment of zoos given utilitarian theory we need to consider a great deal more than the interests of those wild animals exhibited in zoos a For this one must determine all the competing interests of everyone affected by having zoos or a lack thereof This would be extremely difficult to do and many of these storylines would be more speculative than factual more empirical sketches than detailed studies and the vital interests of some individuals will tend not to be considered at all or to be greatly undervalued We must then add up all the pluses and minuses before we can be in a position to say which of the options is the best one b This would lead to moral skepticism the conclusion that we just don t know whether or not zoos are morally defensible 3 The theory commits us to withholding our moral assessment of actions or practices until everyone s interests have been taken into account and treated equitably Thus the theory implies that before we can judge whether an act is morally wrong we need to consider the interests of everyone involved including the wrongdoer But this seems morally outrageous ii The rights approach to the question 1 the moral assessment of zoos must be carried out in relation to the question of animal rights 2 this yields a result that zoos are not morally defensible 1 These animals are not only in the world but they are also aware of it and of what happens to them What happens to them matters to them Each has a life that fares experientially better or worse for the one whose life it is As such all have lives of their own importance to them apart from their utility to us a The satisfaction of their needs is a source of pleasure b Their frustration or abuse is a source of pain c The untimely death of the one whose life it is even if painless is the
View Full Document
Unlocking...