Why Philosophy?

Philosophy:

A study of the processes governing thought and conduct.

A system of principles for theconduct of life.

A study of human morals.

Philosophers are concerned with:

What kinds of things exist?What can we know?What ought I to do?

Ethics or Moral Philosophy

ETHICSA systematic account ofright and wrong.

Ethics = morals to philosophers

You can’t choose to have philosophical views or not - EVERYONE HAS THEM.

The question is ---What are they?What are your views based upon?

HOW SHOULD WE TREAT ANIMALS -HOW SHOULD WE TREAT ANIMALS -AND WHY?AND WHY?

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES

Aristotle

> Born 384 bce Died 322 bce

> Considered still one of world’sgreatest minds.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES

Aristotle

> Ethical issues, including those relating to animals, important to him.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES

Aristotle

> Student of Plato (tutor to Alexanderthe Great).

>Had to flee Rome for “lack of reverencefor the gods.”

“Rationality” separate and superior to“Emotionality”

Mind/body duality

GREAT CHAIN OF BEING

Matter -- Inert, no activity

GREAT CHAIN OF BEING

Plants -- Take in nutrition, grow, reproduceMatter -- Inert, no activity

GREAT CHAIN OF BEING

Animals -- All below + Motility & SensationPlants -- Take in nutrition, grow, reproduceMatter -- Inert, no activity

GREAT CHAIN OF BEING

Slaves/children -- All below, language, no reasonAnimals -- All below + Motility & SensationPlants -- Take in nutrition, grow, reproduceMatter -- Inert, no activity

GREAT CHAIN OF BEING

Free females -- All below + Little ability to ReasonSlaves/children -- All below, language, no reasonAnimals -- All below + Motility & SensationPlants -- Take in nutrition, grow, reproduceMatter -- Inert, no activity

GREAT CHAIN OF BEING

Free males -- All below + Ability to ReasonFree females -- All below + Little ability to ReasonSlaves/children -- All below, language, no reasonAnimals -- All below + Motility & SensationPlants -- Take in nutrition, grow, reproduceMatter -- Inert, no activity

GREAT CHAIN OF BEING

God -- Pure Rationality/Thought

Free males -- All below + Ability to ReasonFree females -- All below + Little ability to ReasonSlaves/children -- All below, language, no reasonAnimals -- All below + Motility & SensationPlants -- Take in nutrition, grow, reproduceMatter -- Inert, no activity

It is the duty of those with reason to rulethose who do not have it.

If an entity is ‘ruled by’ another, thenit must exist for the purposes of others.

Not accepted by all Greeks -Not accepted by all Greeks -Pythagoras a vegetarianPythagoras a vegetarian

(might contain souls of dead(might contain souls of deadmen)men)

DESCARTES> 1596 to 1650> “I think, therefore I am.”> Still believed to be on of world’s

greatest minds.> World is composed of only

MATTER and INTELLECTMATTER and INTELLECT

BODIES HAVE NO MINDS -Mind/body duality

Descartes agreed w/ Aristotle thatonly humans could be rational.

Therefore, animals only ‘matter,’ likemachines “automata.”

Have sensations, but no awareness of them.Have sensations, but no awareness of them.

Thus, a writhing, screaming dog was notexperiencing pain, merely moving like aclock.

Descartes illustrated by pinning dogs toa wall, eviscerating them and explainingto onlookers that the dog’s actions weremerely mindless responses.

KANT> 1724 - 1804

> Known for treasuring intellectualand moral integrity.

> Profound influence on philosophical thought.

> Each person has INTRINSIC VALUE - can’tmake decisions based on utility or end result.

A GOOD END DOESN’T JUSTIFY THE MEANSA GOOD END DOESN’T JUSTIFY THE MEANS

KANT:

Obligations to animals INDIRECTIf hurt an animal,

might hurt its ownermight develop a bad habit that

would lead to hurting humans.

KANT:

WHO COUNTS MORALLY?

The only individuals that count in a moralequation are those that can reason. The basis for whocounts is rationality, not who can feel pleasure or pain.

PETER SINGER

> Current Australian philosopher

> Famous for “Animal Liberation”

> Clear bias (brags has never been to a farm)

Argues that REASON is not the issue-- the ability to SUFFER is.

> Ability to reason is arbitrary, likeskin color or sex.

> Any animal who can suffer should beincluded in the moral equation.

Argues that REASON is not the issue-- the ability to SUFFER is.

> Each animal in the “moral equation”counts equally.

INDIVIDUALISTThe individual is the center of value

ETHICAL HEDONISTPleasure has value, pain has dis-value

So disagrees with Descartes -

Argues animals can sufferArgues animals can suffer

Disagrees with Kant

We have DIRECT duties to animalsWe have DIRECT duties to animals

BE THOUGHTFUL ABOUT WORDS

“Eating meat” vs.“Eating slaughtered non-humans”

“Meat” vs. “murdered flesh”“Vivisection” vs. “surgery”

“What, for instance, are we to do about genuine conflicts of interestgenuine conflicts of interest like ratsbiting slum children? I am not sure ofthe answer, but the essential point isthat we do see this as a conflict of interest,that we recognize that rats have interestsrats have intereststoo.”too.”

Peter Singer

UTILITARIAN

> Developed by Bentham

““The question is not can theyThe question is not can theyreason, but can they suffer?”reason, but can they suffer?”

UTILITARIAN

> Developed by Bentham“The question is not can theyreason, but can they suffer?”

> If count in the moral equation, > If count in the moral equation, all count equally.all count equally.

UTILITARIAN

> Developed by Bentham“The question is not can theyreason, but can they suffer?”

> If count in the moral equation, all count equally.

> Resolve conflicts by summing total pleasure Resolve conflicts by summing total pleasure vs. pain.vs. pain.

Criticisms of Utilitarianism

1 2 3 4 Sum

A) +3 +2 +4 +5 +14

B) +3 -3 +4 +6 +10

Clearly A is a better Clearly A is a better solution than B.solution than B.

1 2 3 4 Sum

A) -10 -10 -10 +60 +30

B) +7 +7 +7 +7 +28

1 2 3 4 Sum

A) -10 -10 -10 +60 +30

B) +7 +7 +7 +7 +28

What if 1, 2 and 3 in “A” are tortured kittens?What if 1, 2 and 3 in “A” are tortured kittens?

The DISTRIBUTIONDISTRIBUTION problem:

Rich, cruel & nasty auntHas willed her fortune to orphanage

If Utilitarian, why not kill her?

Second problem:How quantify the factors?

Third problem:Summing the values leads to a valuethat is the property of a GROUP,but Utilitarian Philos honors theINDIVIDUAL.