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

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 101

ANIMAL WELFARE and/or ANIMAL RIGHTS - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 228 Views
  • Uploaded on

ANIMAL WELFARE and/or ANIMAL RIGHTS. TOM REGAN > Philosopher, Activist. TOM REGAN > Philosopher, Activist > The Case for Animal Rights ( 1983). TOM REGAN > Philosopher, Activist > The Case for Animal Rights ( 1983 > Fundamental Wrong is NOT suffering, it is

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'ANIMAL WELFARE and/or ANIMAL RIGHTS' - Albert_Lan


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

ANIMAL WELFARE

and/or

ANIMAL RIGHTS

slide2

TOM REGAN

> Philosopher, Activist

slide3

TOM REGAN

> Philosopher, Activist

> The Case for Animal Rights ( 1983)

slide4

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”

slide7

> Using animals in science is wrong

(even if it benefits animals)

slide8

> 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

slide9

Regan’s philosophical arguments:

> Accepts animals can feel pain &

that their pain is morally

relevant.

slide10

Regan’s philosophical arguments:

> Accepts animals can feel pain &

that their pain is morally

relevant.

> Criticizes the INDIRECT DUTY view

held by Kant

slide11

DIRECT vs. INDIRECT DUTIES

Traditional:

Those who can’t “sign the contract”

are covered INDIRECTLY.

slide12

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.

slide13

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.

slide14

Regan argues:

Is inherently wrong to torture a puppy,

independent of anyone’s feelings about

the puppy.

slide15

Regan argues:

Is inherently wrong to torture a puppy,

independent of anyone’s feelings about

the puppy.

Thus, we have DIRECT duties to animals.

slide17

UTILITARIANSIM is based on 2 principles:

1) Principle of Equality

If your interests count, they count

equally.

(Regan supports)

slide18

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)

slide19

Regan’s “cup” analogy:

Utilitarians/Singer:

Value is what’s IN the cup.

Rights/Regan:

Value is THE CUP itself.

slide20

Regan argues that concern should be on

individuals who have INHERENT VALUE.

slide21

Regan argues that concern should be on

individuals who have INHERENT VALUE.

But who has “Inherent Value?”

Rats? Ticks? Lady beetles? Bacteria?

slide22

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”

slide23

“Subject of a Life”

Sentient, conscious animals who

> experience their own life

> have a sense of the future.

slide24

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.

slide25

Regan’s perspective:

Continuation of Western perspective that

all humans have equal rights.

Regan’s ‘leap:’

Include non-human animals in the

moral equation.

slide26

SINGER

If count, count equally

Who counts are sentient animals

(“above” shrimp)

What counts is welfare/suffering

slide27

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.)

slide28

REGAN and

THE FAMOUS ROWBOAT PROBLEM

> Given: 3 beings in a rowboat.

slide29

REGAN and

THE FAMOUS ROWBOAT PROBLEM

> Given: 3 beings in a rowboat.

> Only enough water for 2.

slide30

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?

slide31

Based on Pure Rights argument:

Should be equally moral to throw out human

as dog, or pigeon (but not beetle.)

slide32

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.

slide33

WHY SENTIENCE IMPORTANT?

Why more important than suffering?

slide34

WHY SENTIENCE IMPORTANT?

Why more important than suffering?

Why less arbitrary than “ability to reason?”

slide35

WHY SENTIENCE IMPORTANT?

Why more important than suffering?

Why less arbitrary than “ability to reason?”

What is “inherent value,” anyway?

slide36

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.

slide37

Both often agree on WHATwe should do

No agriculture.

No animals in science

No using animals for entertainment

but disagree on WHY.

slide38

Be clear about the distinction between:

ANIMAL RIGHTS

vs.

ANIMAL WELFARE

slide39

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.

slide40

VAN de VEER’s question:

HOW RESOLVE CONFLICTS OF

INTERESTS BETWEEN PEOPLE AND ANIMALS?

slide41

FIVE PRINCIPLES THAT COULD BE USED

First, distinguish hierarchy of INTERESTS:

1. BASIC INTEREST

Life vs. death

slide42

First, distinguish hierarchy of INTERESTS:

1. BASIC INTERESTS

Life vs. death

2. SERIOUS INTERESTS

Necessary for comfort, happiness

slide43

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

slide44

FIVE PRINCIPLES THAT COULD BE USED

I. RADICAL SPECIESISM

Morally permissible to treat animals in

any fashion one chooses.

slide45

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.

slide46

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.

slide47

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.

slide48

V de V suggests 2nd relevant factor:

PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPABILITY

The more psychologically advanced

an animal, more ability to suffer.

slide49

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.

slide50

(2) Sacrifice a basic interest of a less psychol.

complex being to promote a serious interest of

a more psychol. complex one.

slide51

(3) Sacrifice a peripheral interest of one

to promote a more basic interest of another IF

the beings are equal in psychological

complexity.

slide52

V. SPECIES EGALITARIANISM

If a conflict of interest, it is permissible

to subordinate the more peripheral to the

more basic regardless of species.

slide53

V. SPECIES EGALITARIANISM

If a conflict of interest it is permissible

to subordinate the more peripheral to the

more basic regardless of species.

(No regard for psychol. capacity, no

special treatment of humans ---

If like interests, provides no direction

on choosing humans over pigeons.)

slide54

V de V argues for

TWO-FACTOR EGALITARIANISM

> Respectful to non-human animals.

> Allows for palatable decisions in

situations of inter-specific conflict.

slide55

ALDO LEOPOLD

1887 - 1948

The “Father of Modern Conservation Movement.”

slide56

ALDO LEOPOLD

1887 - 1948

The “Father of Modern Conservation Movement.”

Primary developer of field of Wildlife Ecology

slide57

ALDO LEOPOLD

1887 - 1948

The “Father of Modern Conservation Movement.”

Primary developer of field of Wildlife Ecology

A Sand County Almanac (1949)

slide58

The LandEthic

Individuals are members of a community.

slide59

The LandEthic

Individuals are members of a community.

Individuals must balance their desires to

compete with the need to cooperate.

slide60

The LandEthic

Individuals are members of a community.

Individuals must balance their desires to

compete with the need to cooperate.

Community includes soil, water, plants

and animals or THE LAND.

slide61

Biotic Community as the unit of concern

vs. an individual human

Kant, Descartes

vs. an individual animal from

shrimp “up”

Singer, Regan

slide62

Carnivores

Omnivores

Herbivores

Plants

Micro organisms, bacteria

Soil

slide63

Carnivores

Omnivores

Herbivores

Plants

Micro organisms, bacteria

Soil

slide64

Single community has

hundreds or thousands of

connections

slide65

The community itself is an entity

that has health and well-being.

slide66

Humans aren’t capable of completely

understanding a biological community.

slide67

The Land Ethic

Stop seeing ourselves as conquerors

Start seeing ourselves as members of a

community.

slide69

Who is a member of the biotic

community?

Species of plants and animals

slide70

Who is a member of the biotic

community?

Species of plants and animals

Watersheds

slide71

Who is a member of the biotic

community?

Species of plants and animals

Watersheds

Soils

slide72

“A thing is right if it tends to preserve

the integrity, stability and beauty of

the Biotic community. It is wrong

when it tends otherwise.”

Aldo Leopold

slide73

Is there room in this holistic ethic

for valuing both the individual

and the community?

slide74

What place do domestic animals have in

the biological community?

slide75

At what point do we keep

the environment static?

slide76

J. BAIRD CALLICOTT

“Radical Holist”

slide77

J. BAIRD CALLICOTT

“Radical Holist”

Distinguishes between

Rights/Welfare and

Environmental Ethics

slide78

“A Triangular Affair”

Humane Moralism Land Ethic

(Singer, Regan) (Leopold, Calicott)

Moral Humanism

(Aristotle, Kant)

slide79

“A Triangular Affair”

Humane Moralism Land Ethic

(Singer, Regan) (Leopold, Calicott)

Moral Humanism

(Aristotle, Kant)

Holists

Individualists

slide80

Callicott and Domestication

Domestic animals are unnatural

Criticizes Animal Rights groups

for not distinguishing between

domestic and wild.

Domestic animals bred to “docility,

tractability, stupidity and dependency.

slide82

What do about domestic animals?

1. Set Free.

2. Keep, feed, never ‘use’

slide83

What do about domestic animals?

1. Set Free.

2. Keep, feed, never ‘use’

3. Keep, feed, stop reproduction, let

go extinct.

slide84

What do about domestic animals?

1. Set Free.

2. Keep, feed, never ‘use’

3. Keep, feed, stop reproduction, let

go extinct.

4. Live w/ domestic and wild animals

in a way that preserves the

biotic community.

slide85

Callicott against vegetarian life style, because

believes would increase human

population even more.

slide86

Callicott Summary:

> Eat meat with respect

slide87

Callicott Summary:

> Eat meat with respect

> Pain not always bad

slide88

Callicott Summary:

> Eat meat with respect

> Pain not always bad

> Primary unit of concern is biotic community

(holist)

slide89

Callicott Summary:

> Eat meat with respect

> Pain not always bad

> Primary unit of concern is biotic community

(holist)

> Criticizes humane movement as demanding

“comfort and soft pleasures.”

slide90

BAXTER

Argues in favor of speciesism.

slide91

Self interest is not necessarily wrong.

It is reasonable to feel differently about

individuals of one’s own species

as one does about others.

slide92

Speciesism doesn’t have to lead to exploitation or

abuse.

What’s good for humans is the same

as what’s good for animals.

(clean air, clean water, etc.)

slide93

How administer any other system?

How could one sacrifice another

human being for an animal?

slide95

All questions are about what we OUGHT to

do, but “ought” is a concept only relevant to

humans and is meaningless in situations that

involve non-humans.