In Search of Consistency: Ethics and Animals [Human–Animal Studies] Part 1 pptx

[...]... faculties such as understanding, intending, suffering, and consciousness as primary requirements for moral standing (Orlans 17 ) A more rudimentary 18 chapter one and all-encompassing requirement for moral standing is having interests (Rollin 35) A number of philosophers argue that merely to have interests warrants moral standing because any being with interests prefers that those interests be honored rather... human beings are assumed to have moral standing Moral standing distinguishes entities that moral agents must treat with “minimum standards of acceptable behaviour” (Warren 13 ) Entities who hold moral standing gain a certain moral status— their interests must be taken into consideration and this moral status methods and terms 17 carries ethical obligations Moral agents, those of us capable of acting either... thanks to Susan Stuart (and her partner, Norm Grey) for making a foreign student welcome in Scotland, and in their home, for discussions on topics such as conatus, the unacceptability of violence in defending the innocent, the perfection of potatoes, and the importance of cats—including the beloved Mr Finn, the esteemed feline fond of hunting worms I am thankful to the Culture and Animals Foundation for... Hierarchies of Moral Standing Are Indefensible Maxim: Minimize Harm 1 Subpoint One: Minimize Interference 2 Subpoint Two: We May Use Other Life-forms Only with Consent 3 Subpoint Three: Intentions Matter 4 Subpoint Four: Self-Defense Is Morally Permissible 363 365 374 385 3 91 3 91 407 408 418 419 435 437 440 contents xi 5 Extending Ethics Regarding Protection of Human Life:... discrimination against blacks and women is that it involves making distinctions along lines that are morally irrelevant to the question at hand” (Finsen 18 1) If a distinction is to be made regarding the treatment of individuals or groups of individuals, that distinction ought to be morally relevant There is no conclusive list of morally relevant distinctions; this matter is hotly debated in contemporary ethics. .. hind end of a doe She was 2 introduction bounding, and as if in slow motion she flew from the front of the truck, spun in the air, and landed in a crumpled heap in the ditch The truck kept going The three cars behind the truck kept going I was the fourth car behind the truck I watched her try to stand up, her hind end destroyed There were no medics, no police, not even a pause in the rushing of cars,... 4 An ongoing endeavor 4 91 4 91 4 91 493 494 495 495 497 497 499 500 502 503 504 Bibliography 509 Index 5 31 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I thank those who came before me in the field of ethics and animals, including Tom Regan, Peter Singer, Andrew Linzey, and Paul Taylor I am very grateful to each of these scholars for providing thoughtful comments on my presentation of their work... issue of moral considerability does not involve moral significance or the weight of that moral standing Adjudicating competing moral claims is separate and ancillary ( 311 12 ) Moral considerability is all or none and determines but one thing: the presence of a privileged moral status—that of being morally considerable • Goodpaster distinguishes between what we are accustomed to (normative ethics) and what... heightened moral status remain unclear In Regan’s theory, “subjects -of- a-life” have moral standing; Singer’s theory reserves this privilege for “sentient beings.” In Linzey’s theory, all of creation has moral standing; Taylor’s theory offers moral standing to natural teleological entities In the field of protectionism, there is no definitive category of entities that have moral standing In the past, philosophers... A Overview 1 A conspicuous problem 2 A cooperative enterprise 3 The Minimize Harm Maxim B Philosophical standards and the Minimize Harm Maxim 1 Ethical theories 2 Examining the Minimize Harm Maxim 3 Comparison C Reexamining Predominant Western Ethics 1 Reconsidering the value of human life 2 Continuing the trend—moving ethics outward 3 Human . Two: Death and Harm Are Part of Life 407 3. Premise Three: Hierarchies of Moral Standing Are Indefensible 408 Maxim: Minimize Harm 418 1. Subpoint One: Minimize Interference 419 2. Subpoint Two:. and nonnatural 15 0 3. Moral standing 15 1 4. Moral agents and moral patients 15 4 5. Rights 15 5 6. Philosophical principles and standards 15 8 C. Taylor’s Respect for Nature 15 8 1. Belief system—Biocentric. 94 Conclusion 10 1 Chapter three Peter Singer: Utilitarian Protectionism 10 3 A. Singer’s Utilitarian Theory 10 3 1. Utilitarianism 10 3 2. Sentience 10 5 3. Mental capacity 10 9 4. Death and killing 11 0 Summary