Carruthers - Lecture notes PDF

Preview

Summary

Lecture notes...

Description

✨Carruthers✨ Rawlsian Cont Contrract actualism ualism & Animals/SMHA Carru Carruther ther thers: s: Contractualism - Reject Premise 1 of both arguments (humane intuitions (cocoamone farming) and marginal cases (SMHA farming)) ● Seems contractualists accept Premise 1 and reject Premise 2 (!?) ● Rawlsian Agent: a) rational, b) self-interested, and c) behind the Veil of Ignorance ● Rawlsian Cont Contrract actualism: ualism: One should act according to the rules that would be agreed to by Rawlsian Agents Carru Carruther ther thers: s: T The he Ar Argum gum gument ent fr from om Humane Int Intui ui uitt ions ● It’s bad to hurt animals when it makes us more likely to hurt rational beings (like NHAs) ● Factory farming doesn’t do this. So factory farming isn’t wrong. ● Cocoamone farming does do this. So cocoamone farming is wrong. Worries ● Does factory farming lead to humans being more likely to hurt other rational beings? ● Does cocoamone farming make Fred any more likely to hurt other rational beings? Carru Carruther ther thers: s: T The he Ar Argum gum gument ent fr from om Mar Marginal ginal Cases The Social St Stabili abili ability ty Ar Argum gum gument ent ● Premise 1: If our immediate relatives were “marginal”, and had no rights, then they could be taken by the state anytime it would benefit society to do so ● Premise 2: If the state could do this, then society would be unstable. ● Premise 3: Rawlsian Agents wouldn’t agree to rules which would make society unstable. ● Conclusion: Rawlsian Agents will grant “marginal” humans rights. ○ So SMHA farming is wrong ○ (And, as we already saw, factory farming is not wrong) ■ Premise 1 (from marginal cases) is false Worries ffor or T The he Social Stabili ty Ar Argum gum gument ent Worry 1: Could offer a similar argument for why animals should have rights? ● If so, Premise 1 would be true Worry 2: Premise 1 is false (if we had rigid property rights, the state couldn’t take them). ● Rawlsian Agents: Giving us rigid property rights > Giving “marginal” humans rights Worry 3: Premise 2 is false? ( Would this lead to instability?) ● Not clear that this specific thing would lead to instability, rather than another thing

Worry ● Worry ●

4: Premise 2 is false? (If this led to instability, wouldn’t be in society’s interests) Could never lead to the benefit of the state if instability was present 5: Argument is invalid (Only follows that immediate relatives of Rawlsian Agents get rights) And this undermines the claim that SMHA farming is wrong...