Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Ryan Katzman (THURS)
The ethics of the treatment of animals has become a topic that only began to enter mainstream consciousness in the 1970’s. Peter Singer has been one of the philosophers on the forefront of the animal rights movement since it began and has written extensively on the subject. This paper considers Singer’s arguments for utility and applying it to animal rights, drawing heavily from works such as Animal Liberation. Further an analysis of the benefits and drawbacks of a utilitarian calculus when applied to animals is conducted, and Singer’s arguments about speciesism and the attitude that “the greatest good for the greatest number” is the correct way to develop an ethic is scrutinized. The paper concludes with a discussion of animal intelligence, the possibility of animals having languages and cognition, and finally the implications that develop if they do, and what would happen if the social contract were extended into the animal kingdom.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What are some alternative methods for animal ethics besides utilitarianism?
ReplyDeleteIs the Bentham's view of animal rights that correct way to approach animals that are prey to humans? After all, humans are animals with consciences?
ReplyDeleteHow do animals' exsitence in a natural state benefit humans, if at all?
ReplyDeleteIf the social contract theory is extended into the animal kingdom, how can we justify using animals as a food source? What would people decided to do about animal rights if they were behind the veil of ignorance in this situation?
ReplyDeleteIf animals had intelligence and the social contract applied to animals would that not disrupt thousands of years of evolutions since they are a part of some sort of food chain. Would animals have obligations to other animals on which they naturally prey on?
ReplyDeleteIf this was the case, one would have to adopt the mentality that animals are intrinsically valuable. Thus, there is a possibility of a major tension between humans and animals. Therefore, in regards to the land, how would arguments for the land ethic and the allodial land right be addressed?
ReplyDelete