All Animals are Equal - Answers to the questions of the study guide, which are the questions asked on PDF

Preview

Summary

Answers to the questions of the study guide, which are the questions asked on exams....

Description

2 Arguments in favor of animal exp: ● Med research on animal provide more benefits to humans than it does harming animals (Consequentialist argument) so it is morally permissible ● Med research on animals provide benefits for humans and only harms animals (morally permissible for humans to harm animals) ○ Their interests are not as important as ours Singer addresses argument 2 1. Singer begins with a comparison between women’s liberation and animal liberation. Why is he drawing this comparison, and what is he trying to say about it? He is drawing this comparison because if it works in cases for women and it was then inserted to work for Brutes, it was not a sound argument. If at any point it would not make sense for women, but also for animals, which would be ridiculous, it would then have to be considered to be an unsound argument. However it can be argued that because man and woman are so alike that they should hold the same rights, while humans and nonhumans are so different, that they should not have the same rights. ● Women didn’t have equal rights or opportunities to men historically. They were given no form of equality. They thought women were incapable of these roles. Not all men can succeed in university, yet we let all men try… why not let all women try. This went against all political and social institutions. A parody on this book came out and took their arguments and showed that they had to extend equal consideration to all individuals… even animals. ○ Wants to reveal how society reacts to ideas that are counterintuitive… their first reaction is to make fun of it. Also wants to bring it up to show that the arguments that imply gender equality imply that we should take animals interests into consideration also. How to change our attitudes to how we treat animals. 2. Singer says that “The basic principle of equality does not require equal or identical treatment; it requires equal consideration. Equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different rights”. What is this picture of equality that Singer is trying to develop, and how is it different from the ‘identical treatment’ accounts of equality?\ Singer is saying that just because a right is needed for one group that does not mean that it is required for all, nor do all have the possibility of having the right. An example would be giving women the right to abortions and someone saying that it should then be extended to males, when males cannot physically have an abortion. This is different from the identical treatment accounts of equality in the fact that not everyone needs the same rights to be considered equals, women and men do not necessarily need the same of everything to be considered equal to men. Women need to have access to abortions while males do not, males would like to have access to erectile dysfunction medications while women do not. Singer is trying to develop that there can still be equality without identical treatment. ● Even if people are equal it does not mean that they should be treated in the exact same way. THink about it in equal consideration of people’s interests!!! It is justified then. What about animals and humans. Should animals be given the right to access education… to vote… just because they matter as much as humans does not mean that they should be

given the same rights as humans. Animals have interest and instead of dismissing them we need to treat them like they are just as important as our own. 3. When characterizing the principle of equality, Singer says the following: “The principle of the equality of human beings is not a description of an alleged actual quality among humans: it is a prescription of how we should treat human beings”. WHat is the understanding of equality, and how does it differ from claims about what Singer calls ‘factual equality’? ● Moral equality not factual equality. We are all born with a wide range of abilities and there is nothing wrong with that. ● What are some ways that some humans are better than others? ○ Intelligence (some are better at math) ○ Athletic ability ○ Articulating thoughts and ideas ○ Socializing with others ○ Test taking ○ Artistic ability ● What about people who are better than everyone at everything? Should they be allowed to do whatever they want to us and with us? ○ Factually we are not equal to them but morally we are their equal and we should be treated as such. Equality is a moral idea… not a fact. Treat their interests as being equally important ● How does this apply to animals? ○ If we combat racism and sexism we should rely on factual equality, because we are not all equal. Treat them the same regardless of levels of ability. But then again this should be applied to humans. Morally permissible for non-humans to imprison, harm, kill and eat you? ● From our POV it is immoral, but from the aliens POV it may be morally permissible… it is how we treat animals now ● Is it okay because it is a different species? Does species change the moral status? ● Bridges a gap between intelligence arguments and species ●

If having a higher intelligence doesn’t allow us to treat those below us as such then how can humans exploit non-humans for the same reason. Having more ability does not justify oppressing another. Only difference is level of rationality.

4. What is speciesism, and how does this term figure into Singer’s argument? ● “Prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of one’s own species and against those of members of other species.” or tendency to look at the pain and suffering of non-humans an dismiss it. 5. Singer says the following: “If a being suffers there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with

the like suffering-insofar as rough comparisons can be made-of any other being. If a being is not capable of suffering, or of experiencing enjoyment or happiness, there is ntohing to be taken into account. So the limit of sentience (using the term as a convenient if not strictly accurate shorthand for the capacity to suffer and/or experience enjoyment) is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interests of others. To mark this boundary by some other characteristic like intelligence or rationality would be to mark it in an arbitrary manner. Why not choose some other characteristic, like skin color?” What common practices does this claim condemn? How would we have to change our common practices in order to conform to Singer’s principle of equality? ● Sentience! Human history has been people saying suffering doesn’t matter because of sex or skin color or intelligence… but there is still one part of this circle we haven’t done yet. We haven’t yet moved past speciesism. ● Common practices condemned by this side? ○ Stop altering the environment (urbanization) ○ Raising and farming animals ■ Would have to wait for them to die naturally to eat them ○ What implies about animal research? 6. How does Singer argue for the claim that “animals do suffer”? 7. Singer admits “that there is a reason, which is not speciesist, for preferring to use animals rather than normal adult human beings, if the experiment is to be done at all”. What is this reason, and what implications does it have? ● Not all animal research is wrong and there are some circumstances where it is okay. Normal adult humans have capacities that lead them to suffer more so than animals. Terror is a form of suffering that humans have. If you kidnap a human in the park you also have the family that is scared and then strangers fear getting kidnapped too… so it would cause excess suffering to humans. Experimenting on humans have higher costs than testing on animals! ○ We should not be specieist. It there is considerable benefit then it is justifiable, but generally speaking you will cause more harm on humans 8. What is Singer’s conclusion regarding the ethics of killing non-humans?...