Download
slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
ANIMAL WELFARE and/or ANIMAL RIGHTS PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
ANIMAL WELFARE and/or ANIMAL RIGHTS

ANIMAL WELFARE and/or ANIMAL RIGHTS

255 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

ANIMAL WELFARE and/or ANIMAL RIGHTS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. ANIMAL WELFARE and/or ANIMAL RIGHTS

  2. TOM REGAN > Philosopher, Activist

  3. TOM REGAN > Philosopher, Activist > The Case for Animal Rights ( 1983)

  4. TOM REGAN > Philosopher, Activist > The Case for Animal Rights ( 1983 > Fundamental Wrong is NOT suffering, it is the belief that we “view animals as our resources”

  5. > Agriculture is wrong

  6. > Hunting is wrong

  7. > Using animals in science is wrong (even if it benefits animals)

  8. > Pet keeping is wrong (“In a perfect world, there would be no pets.”) Ingrid Newkirk, PETA (“I think of dogs as war refugees, unable to be truly happy anywhere.”)Tom Regan, 2004

  9. Regan’s philosophical arguments: > Accepts animals can feel pain & that their pain is morally relevant.

  10. Regan’s philosophical arguments: > Accepts animals can feel pain & that their pain is morally relevant. > Criticizes the INDIRECT DUTY view held by Kant

  11. DIRECT vs. INDIRECT DUTIES Traditional: Those who can’t “sign the contract” are covered INDIRECTLY.

  12. Traditional View, cont’d: Those who can’t “sign the contract” are covered INDIRECTLY. Thus we have duties regarding children but not directly to them.

  13. Regan argues against this view: Who decides who “gets to sign the contract?” Ex: Blacks in South Africa were not allowed to be part of the social contract.

  14. Regan argues: Is inherently wrong to torture a puppy, independent of anyone’s feelings about the puppy.

  15. Regan argues: Is inherently wrong to torture a puppy, independent of anyone’s feelings about the puppy. Thus, we have DIRECT duties to animals.

  16. Regan also dismisses UTILITARIANISM

  17. UTILITARIANSIM is based on 2 principles: 1) Principle of Equality If your interests count, they count equally. (Regan supports)

  18. UTILITARIANSIM is based on 2 principles: 1) Principle of Equality If your interests count, they count equally. (Regan supports) 2) Principle of Utility Do the act that will bring the best balance of pleasure over pain OVERALL. (Regan does not support)

  19. Regan’s “cup” analogy: Utilitarians/Singer: Value is what’s IN the cup. Rights/Regan: Value is THE CUP itself.

  20. Regan argues that concern should be on individuals who have INHERENT VALUE.

  21. Regan argues that concern should be on individuals who have INHERENT VALUE. But who has “Inherent Value?” Rats? Ticks? Lady beetles? Bacteria?

  22. Regan argues that concern should be on individuals who have INHERENT VALUE. But who has “Inherent Value?” Rats? Ticks? Lady beetles? Bacteria? Regan argues it is held by: “Subjects of a Life”

  23. “Subject of a Life” Sentient, conscious animals who > experience their own life > have a sense of the future.

  24. Consequences of Rights Perspective: Can NOT use a sentient animal as a tool, no matter what the reason or what the outcome. End does NOT justify the means.

  25. Regan’s perspective: Continuation of Western perspective that all humans have equal rights. Regan’s ‘leap:’ Include non-human animals in the moral equation.

  26. SINGER If count, count equally Who counts are sentient animals (“above” shrimp) What counts is welfare/suffering

  27. SINGER If count, count equally Who counts are sentient animals (“above” shrimp) What counts is welfare/suffering REGAN If count, count equally Who counts are sentient animals (“above” shrimp) What counts is basic rights (not to be used, harmed or exploited for others.)

  28. REGAN and THE FAMOUS ROWBOAT PROBLEM > Given: 3 beings in a rowboat.

  29. REGAN and THE FAMOUS ROWBOAT PROBLEM > Given: 3 beings in a rowboat. > Only enough water for 2.

  30. REGAN and THE FAMOUS ROWBOAT PROBLEM > Given: 3 beings in a rowboat. > Only enough water for 2. > If have to throw 1 out to save 2, what do?

  31. Based on Pure Rights argument: Should be equally moral to throw out human as dog, or pigeon (but not beetle.)

  32. Based on Rights argument: Should be equally moral to throw out human as dog, or pigeon (but not beetle.) But Regan does NOT advocate, because: “Humans have a ‘wider web of obligations’ to others, thus would cause more harm to sacrifice the human.

  33. WHY SENTIENCE IMPORTANT? Why more important than suffering?

  34. WHY SENTIENCE IMPORTANT? Why more important than suffering? Why less arbitrary than “ability to reason?”

  35. WHY SENTIENCE IMPORTANT? Why more important than suffering? Why less arbitrary than “ability to reason?” What is “inherent value,” anyway?

  36. WHAT ABOUT LOGISTICS? Rats in your kitchen? Regan: Rats have equal rights. End never justifies the means. Singer: Rats NOT equal, but deserve “equal consideration.” Balance good and bad, choose least suffering.

  37. Both often agree on WHATwe should do No agriculture. No animals in science No using animals for entertainment but disagree on WHY.

  38. Be clear about the distinction between: ANIMAL RIGHTS vs. ANIMAL WELFARE

  39. DONALD VAN de VEER Concerned about Singer’s statement giving rats equal consideration as children in slums. Concerned about Regan’s statements giving equal rights to rats.

  40. VAN de VEER’s question: HOW RESOLVE CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS BETWEEN PEOPLE AND ANIMALS?

  41. FIVE PRINCIPLES THAT COULD BE USED First, distinguish hierarchy of INTERESTS: 1. BASIC INTEREST Life vs. death

  42. First, distinguish hierarchy of INTERESTS: 1. BASIC INTERESTS Life vs. death 2. SERIOUS INTERESTS Necessary for comfort, happiness

  43. First, distinguish hierarchy of INTERESTS: 1. BASIC INTEREST Life vs. death 2. SERIOUS INTEREST Necessary for comfort, happiness 3. PERIPHERAL INTERESTS Luxury, not necessary or vital

  44. FIVE PRINCIPLES THAT COULD BE USED I. RADICAL SPECIESISM Morally permissible to treat animals in any fashion one chooses.

  45. II. EXTREME SPECIESISM In a conflict of interest between an animal and a human, one can: Deny a basic interest of an animal to promote even a peripheral interest of a human.

  46. III. INTEREST SENSITIVE SPECIESISM In a conflict between an animal and a human, one can: Sacrifice a like interest of an animal for the sake of the human, butcan’t sacrifice a basic interest of an animal for a peripheral interest of a human.

  47. V de V opposed to this philosophy as well: Puts all non-human animals in the same category; gives oyster, rat or pigeon same weight as chimpanzee.

  48. V de V suggests 2nd relevant factor: PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPABILITY The more psychologically advanced an animal, more ability to suffer.

  49. IV. TWO FACTOR EGALITARIANISM (Interests and Psychological complexity) In a conflict between an animal and a human. one can: (1) Sacrifice the interest of a less psychol. complex being to promote a like interest of a more psychol. complex one.

  50. (2) Sacrifice a basic interest of a less psychol. complex being to promote a serious interest of a more psychol. complex one.