lecture 7: animal liberation - william e. macaulay honors...

Lecture 7: Animal Liberation

• Two arguments against speciesism

• Animal liberation and utilitarianism

• Animal liberation vs. biocentrism

• Are animal rights inviolable?

• Animal liberation and biodiversity conservation

Friday, September 27, 2013

Topics







What do we owe to animals?

• Lori Gruen, “The Moral Status of Animals”


Animal Liberation

• “Humans are members of the species Homo sapiens. But...species membership is a morally irrelevant characteristic, a bit of luck that is no more morally interesting than being born male or female, Malaysian or French”

• If there is something morally special about humans, it’s because we have some special psychological capacity that gives us moral status.

• So what is it?


Animal Liberation

• Animal liberationists think there is no special characteristic that gives moral status to all and only humans

• “Speciesism” is as groundless as racism: belief in the inherent moral superiority of one species over another.


Two Problems for Speciesism

• Most of the psychological abilities that once seemed to make us special are also shared by animals

• “...developing family ties, solving social problems, expressing emotions, starting wars, having sex for pleasure, using language, or thinking abstractly...”


Two Problems for Speciesism

• Even if there were some ability, X, that only humans have, not all humans will be equal with respect to X

• Does that mean we can do whatever we like with humans who don’t have X?


Are humans ‘special’?• Kant’s view was that human

beings are morally superior to animals because of their heightened capacity for self-awareness and reflection

• However, these can’t be grounds for disregarding the interests of non-humans: after all, not all humans are equal in these features either.


Topics







Are humans ‘special’?• One of the major figures in

this tradition is Peter Singer

• For Singer, we have direct moral obligations to all sentient creatures, and only sentient creatures

• Utility principle: since happiness is the only good, and pain the only bad, we should minimize unnecessary suffering wherever it occurs.


Are humans ‘special’?

• Utilitarianism does not impose any absolute moral restrictions on what we can do with animals.

• It just holds that, if we are to cause suffering to an animal, we have to justify it in terms of the net benefit to others.


Are humans ‘special’?

• Another viewpoint, the animal rights tradition, tends to be more absolutist.

• This holds that it is inherently morally wrong to hurt or kill sentient creatures.


Topics







Animal liberation vs. biocentrism

• According to biocentrism, we have moral obligations to all living things - a point that Singer denies.

• Unless a creature is capable of pleasure or pain, it has no ‘interests’ to speak of.

• To say a creature has interests means it can be benefit, or be harmed, by our actions.


Sentience and Interests

• Consider the difference between a deer, on the one hand, and...




• a rock




• a rock

• a bacterium




• a rock

• a bacterium

• a tree




• a rock

• a bacterium

• a tree

• a stream


Animal liberation vs. biocentrism

• Kicking a stone, cutting down a tree, or polluting a stream, may be harmful to other people or animals, but it’s not harmful to the rock, tree, or stream

• The same would go for people in permanent vegetative states


Sliding scale of moral responsibilities

• Mammals and birds

• Insects and crustaceans

• Bacteria and viruses

??


Topics







Equal treatment?

• Saying that humans and animals deserve equal consideration doesn’t mean treating their lives as having equal worth

• Animal rights are not inviolable


Equal treatment?

• In the lifeboat example, we should usually save the person over the dog:

• the human will typically suffer more

• friends and family will suffer more

• greater loss of potential happiness


Topics







Animal liberation and biodiversity conservation • Animal Liberation:

• Hunting is (usually) wrong because it (usually) causes suffering

• Advocates for hunting bans

• Biodiversity Conservation:

• Hunting is (usually) OK if it is consistent with the preservation of the species

• Advocates for selective ‘culling’



• Factory farming and animal experimentation are wrong


• No particular stance is implied by biodiversity conservation



• Keeping animals captive for entertainment, or even breeding programs, is typically wrong


• Animals should be kept captive for the purpose of breeding programs when necessary for preservation of species


Animal liberation and endangered species

• From the point of view of suffering, it’s just as wrong to harpoon an endangered blue whale as any other species of whale.

• Being endangered doesn’t, in and of itself, make a creature more valuable


Animal liberation and endangered species

• The only reason to give special protection to endangered creatures is because of the benefits that the species may have to humans and other animals


Considerations

• AL seems to forbid hunting, while biodiversity conservation would often encourage it.

• AL does not provide an adequate explanation for why it’s particularly wrong to allow a species to become extinct, particularly if the species does not benefit other creatures.


lecture 7: animal liberation - william e. macaulay honors...

Documents