Animal Rights
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior
permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
Chapter 16 Environmental Ethics
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
• Discuss environmental ethical issues.
• Discuss human attitudes toward the natural environment and its constituents.
• Judge whether humans have a moral obligation to preserve and protect nature.
• Analyze the question, “To what extent do animals and plants have rights?”
• Analyze the arguments for and against the use and exploitation of the natural environment and everything in it.
• Recognize the importance of non-Western ethical perspectives for addressing environmental issues.
We live in a world of limits. Population increase, unprecedented consumption, toxic waste, pollution, depletion of resources and species, and climate change have brought humanity face
to face with the limits of the natural world and the environment. This realization makes it imperative that we rethink our core values and the way(s) we live. In addition, we must also
rethink our relationships to the environment and obligations to one another, including our posterity. This chapter helps us think through these important issues from both Western and
non-Western perspectives.
DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS
1. Speciesism: A prejudice for one’s own species and against other species.
2. Sentientism: The theory that only those beings with mental states should be the subject of moral concern.
3. Wholism: A conception of nature wherein humans and nature together form a moral community.
4. Vegetarianism: The refusal to eat meat, fish, fowl, or any food derived from them and the favoring of a diet of vegetables.
5. Endangered species: A species of animals in danger of becoming extinct because of the encroachment of civilization upon the natural environment and careless exploitation by
human beings.
NATURE AND MORALITY
In recent years, people have come to realize that natural resources and animals, plants, and trees are not boundless but are subject to diminishment, destruction, and loss through careless
exploitation, pollution, and the general encroachment of civilization. In the past, despite inklings of this realization in cases such as the near extinction of the American buffalo in the old
West through wholesale slaughter, people assumed that natural resources would last forever and were there merely to be used and exploited. Water, air, forests, animals, plants, and
minerals were considered to exist in abundance and without end. In recent years, however, with the rise of industrialized, technological, producing and consuming societies, people have
discovered that this is just not so. There indeed are limits to the natural resources of the world, and it is possible to eliminate whole species of animals by means of lack of concern for
their survival and willful exploitation.
For most modern, “civilized” people, “nature and morality” was a new category, but in reality it was an ancient idea among primitive human beings who tended to see themselves as
being much more closely allied with nature than we do. Even our modern-day concerns are often centered around nature’s destruction as that affects our own lives rather than nature
having value in and for itself. In this sense, human relations with nature could be subsumed under the social aspect having to do with people in relationship to other people.
However, many people do consider nature as being valuable in and of itself and insist that we have specific moral obligations toward it and all that it contains, especially those animals
that are close to us in nature’s order. In this chapter, we will look at both aspects but will concentrate upon nature and morality.
ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICAL ISSUES
Several environmental ethical issues will be discussed throughout this chapter, and it is important to describe them briefly now.
Waste and Destruction of Natural Resources
For years we have assumed that our natural resources will last forever, that our water, air, oil, minerals, earth, plants, and trees will always be there for us to use and will never be
depleted. However, in recent times we have discovered that there is a limit to everything, including our natural resources. Some believe that we are very close to the end of nature. As we
willy-nilly cut down trees for use in wood and paper products, for example, we began to realize that our forests were disappearing. When we had oil shortages in 1973, 1998, 1999, and
2000, and Americans were held hostage by the Arab nations, we began to realize that there was only so much oil in the ground and the sea, and that our pumps would not bring up oil
forever. Recently discovered plentiful oil deposits in North America have significantly extended the horizons of available supply. However, there exist questions about the environmental
impact of various extraction techniques and technologies. In addition, alternative fuels and energy sources are being explored and developed. As our rainfall diminished along with our
water supply, we began to realize that there was a limit to our water as well, and we simply could not overwater our lawns or let water flow down the drains of our sinks, bathtubs, and
toilets, or we would actually run out of it.
As each of these realizations hit us, we were shocked that the earth’s bounty would not last unless we stopped destroying without rebuilding or replanting and unless we began to
conserve our precious natural resources. We simply could not continue cutting down trees without planting new ones to take their place. We also had to recycle paper so that not as many
trees would be used up to make it. We had to be careful not merely to let water flow but to restrict our use of it. We couldn’t just use and misuse our land by destroying it in digging for
oil, coal, and other minerals, and we had to be careful not to exhaust its fertility by continuing to plant in the same soil without protecting it and letting it lie fallow.
Exploiting, Misusing, and Polluting the Environment
We also discovered, probably with what first happened to the air in Los Angeles, California, that heavy industrialization and a tremendous proliferation of automobiles polluted the
environment so badly that we found it difficult to breathe, grow things, or even to see on particularly smoggy days. We further discovered that such heavy pollution also destroyed the
ozone layer that protects the earth against excessive rays of the sun.
Additionally we found that we could not continue to dump our waste in the ground and in the rivers, lakes, and oceans without dire effects on those bodies of water and their inhabitants.
If we drilled for oil in the ocean and sprung a leak or had a spill, we could adversely affect the natural and recreational environments surrounding them, including the plants, animals, or
fish within them. As our industrialization and technology increased, so did the toxicity of the waste, and we found ourselves burying in the land or dumping in bodies of water very
dangerous and poisonous materials, such as strong chemicals, atomic waste, and other dangerous materials that seriously affected our whole environment as well as us its inhabitants.
Exploiting, Abusing, and Destroying Animals
Ethics: Theory and Practice (Updated Edition) https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323130162/print?from...
1 of 14 12/5/2016 2:46 PM PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior
permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
One of the most controversial ethical issues concerning the environment is the question of animal rights and whether we have moral obligations toward animals. These issues encompass
destroying animals for food or for parts of their bodies (e.g., furs, skins, or tusks); hunting them for sport; and using them for scientific and other experimentation.
HUNTING AND DESTROYING ANIMALS FOR FOOD AND BODY PARTS.
Since human beings are basically carnivores—that is, meat eaters—and have been throughout history, destroying animals for food has been and is quite common. In the past, we hunted
animals for food and often used their skins or other parts of their bodies for clothes. Primitive people seemed, however, to use only what they needed and did not destroy whole herds of
animals just for the sake of killing them. Hunting for food and other necessities is an ancient activity. Hunting and acquiring food and other items were combined, but early human beings
seemed to have more respect for animals and the environment than modern ones do.
Several changes have occurred, however, which some people see as eliminating the necessity of using animals for these purposes. First, we have created wonderful synthetic
materials—even furs—that eliminate the need for killing animals for their skins. We no longer need whale blubber to operate oil lamps because we now have electricity. We no longer
need to hunt animals for food because we now raise animals specifically for the food that we eat (creating another ethical issue that we will discuss later). Killing wild animals, then, has
become a sport that many enjoy and many others decry because they feel it amounts to murdering animals for excitement and also threatens to cause certain wild animals to become
extinct.
RAISING ANIMALS FOR FOOD.
Ethical issues also have arisen with regard to the raising, slaughtering, and eating of animals for food. The demands of modern humans for tastier meats and other animal products, such
as eggs, butter, and milk, have caused the food industry to resort to different ways of raising animals for food, some of which cause animals to suffer until they are slaughtered. For
example, in the past, animals were raised in the open plains and were allowed to graze, roam, and live in the open air until such time as they were to be slaughtered for food. Nowadays,
many animals are raised inside, cooped up in narrow pens, and never allowed outside to graze normally. Some animals never see the sun or breathe the open air, and they are fed food and
chemicals that will make them the fattest the soonest without regard for their own likes or dislikes or any concern for their comfort or the pain such conditions or diets may bring.
Some people argue that given what we know about the way animals are raised and about what foods really are good for us, we should stop eating meat at all, thus making the need to
raise and slaughter animals for food obsolete. Such people state further that even if we continue to eat meat, we ought to do so sparingly, and, at any rate, we should not use cruel and
inhumane methods as we raise animals for this purpose.
USING ANIMALS FOR SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTATION.
One of the oldest controversies concerning our moral obligations toward animals is whether they should be experimented upon for scientific or medical advancement. Since the
antivivisection movement of the nineteenth century protested cutting into live animals for purposes of scientific research, these protests have expanded to include any experimentation on
animals “for the good of humanity.” There are strong laws concerning experimenting on human beings, and thus animals must be used, according to science, to test drugs and scientific or
medical procedures. Without the use of animals, many of our greatest scientific advancements and cures for diseases (e.g., heart disease, kidney disease, and diabetes) would never have
been made. Opponents of animal experimentation argue that often it is totally unnecessary as well as harmful and fatal to the animals being experimented on. They argue that research
should be conducted without the use of either humans or animals.
ENDANGERMENT, DECIMATION, AND EXTINCTION OF ANIMAL SPECIES.
Because of the encroachment of civilization, as when forests are cut down and towns are built, the natural habitats of animals have shrunk significantly or been destroyed. In addition,
because of the continuing demand for animal skins, parts, and trophies, whole species have been slaughtered to the point of extreme endangerment or extinction. Animal rights supporters
deplore such activities and have called for an end of the hunting of all animals, especially endangered species, and also for the restriction of any activities that will destroy the
environments in which animals live and thrive. They argue that every effort must be made to stop all activities that threaten any animal species, and that attempts should be made to
restore such environments to their natural states.
Many issues have arisen in our century that deal with the proper stance people should be taking toward the natural environment and all of its inhabitants. The first important question we
should address concerning these issues is what lies behind the attitudes that brought the issues to a head. What caused us to see nature as something to be controlled and manipulated for
our own use, regardless of the effects on it and all it contains? Why have we arrived at such a state that we have to be concerned about our relationship with the environment and animals?
OUR ATTITUDE TOWARD NATURE AND WHAT LIES BEHIND IT
Attitudes toward nature have not developed overnight; however, we cannot say that they always have been nor that they always are present in every culture. In the Native American
culture, for example, there exists a kind of monistic (oneness) or wholistic view of nature and humanness as being one, not as separate from each other. Native Americans historically and
currently see themselves as a part of nature, as closely related to everything natural rather than as something or someone separate from it. They believe that spirits inhabit everything, not
just them, and they relate to nature and animals as if they were family. They take only what they need and have a deep respect for all aspects of nature and animals.
Eastern religions, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Daoism, also see nature and humans as being one unified whole instead of seeing nature as subordinate to humans or as something to
be manipulated and controlled by them. Here again, unlike Western religions, if spirituality is accepted by the religion, it tends to permeate everyone and everything, not just human
beings. The whole universe is spiritual, not just humans and God. The Western view, however, has tended to see humans and nature in a dualistic relationship that is sometimes almost
adversarial. There are two major sources in Western culture from which this dualism emerged.
Platonic Dualism: The Beginnings of Western Philosophy
Socrates and then Plato both tended to see the external world as the shadow copy of a real world that exists somewhere else in what Plato called the “world of ideas.” With these two
men, philosophy moved away from the external world, which had been the focus of the pre-Socratic philosophers (the first scientists), to a focus on human beings and their reason, which
enabled them to attain the real world of ideas, a world that Plato felt exists outside of or beyond this world. Both Socrates and Plato, then, tended to deemphasize the importance of this
world as opposed to the world of ideas where they felt that ultimate truths could be found, but only through human reason. Plato felt that if human beings concentrated on the external
world and everything that was in it, they would only be seeing shadow copies of the real world that exists beyond this world. For example, when Socrates asked a question of his
students, such as, “What is justice?” and they answered, “Justice is how Zeus treated Achilles in a certain situation,” he then said, “No. I mean what is justice, ‘itself by itself ’?” In other
words, he felt that somewhere there exists the ultimate true idea of justice from which all just acts are mere manifestations. This dualism enabled the Greeks to think abstractly for the
first time in their history, but it also tended to split them away from nature in that they, as reasoning beings, saw themselves as different from and more important than nature and the
external world, because they and no other beings in nature could attain the “real” world of ideas that Plato thought actually existed.
Judeo-Christian Teachings in the Bible
Ethics: Theory and Practice (Updated Edition) https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323130162/print?from...
2 of 14 12/5/2016 2:46 PM PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior
permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
The second dualistic view emerges from the early Judeo-Christian tradition, which taught that God is a supernatural, spiritual being who shares His spirituality with human beings. No
other being in nature, according to the teachings in both traditions, has any spirituality. Again, this world is viewed as being God’s creation and significant but is not the real world, which
lies beyond in the supernatural world (according to Christianity). In Genesis, Adam is told by God that he has “dominion over the animals of the earth, the birds of the air, and the fish of
the sea” and that nature essentially is there for his purposes. Adam is told to “go forth and multiply” and have dominion over everything. This again makes nature and everything in it
subservient to human beings and their wishes, implying that nature exists strictly for their use and has little or no value in itself. This may not be the way many worshipers in Judaism and
Christianity feel today, but there is no doubt that these teachings have had a definite influence on the attitudes people in the Western world have toward nature.
The Rise of Science and Scientific Progress
It is ironic that the influences just mentioned, although giving rise to an exploitative attitude toward nature, also have made science and scientific progress possible. It is no accident that
science has progressed by leaps and bounds in the Western world, while being almost nonexistent in the Eastern world. And why not? If nature, and all it contains, is subservient to us, or
if we can make it so by harnessing its powers and using it for our own best interest, then why not do so?
As science and technology advanced, nature became more and more subservient to human needs and desires, and the environment and animals were used and exploited without regard to
any inherent value they might have. After all, so the attitude went, we are the only beings with intrinsic value; nature has only instrumental value, that is, it is only valuable as it helps us
attain whatever goals we believe are important to us.
Industrialization
With the tremendous advancement of science and technology, most nations in the West and many in the East have become highly industrialized, requiring a greater use of natural
resources and also causing a greater deleterious effect on the environment because of the need for more land, and air, and a greater disposal of waste. For example, given our civilization’s
need for certain chemicals or chemical products, a chemical plant may be situated in a natural setting on a river, which requires trees to be cut and hills to be leveled, while the plant
pours its poisonous waste into that body of water and pollutes the air by belching chemical-laden smoke into it.
Encroachment of Nature by Civilization
Civilization’s encroachment upon nature has also taken many forms. As we have moved out of crowded cities into the countryside nearby and created suburbs, we have eliminated more
and more of the natural environment and replaced it with our own. As we have leveled trees and hills to put in housing developments, shopping centers, and other “civilized” creations,
we have shrunk the natural environment and pushed species of plants and animals back into narrower areas where they often have not been able to survive because of the elimination of
their space, air, water, and food supplies.
All of the preceding have contributed to our attitudes toward the natural environment and all it contains. It remains to be seen whether these attitudes should prevail or whether they
should undergo radical or moderate changes. An examination and analysis of the arguments for and against the use and exploitation of nature will help us to look at both sides of
environmental ethical issues.
ARGUMENTS FOR USE AND EXPLOITATION OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Dominion-over-Nature Arguments
A strong set of arguments states that human beings are the highest form of natural creation and, therefore, should have complete dominion over nature and everything that it contains.
Nature exists strictly for the use of human beings and has no other purpose for its existence. These arguments come from two sources: religion and science.
RELIGIOUS BASIS FOR DOMINION.
As pointed out, Western religions seem to support the stance that people, although related to nature, are yet other and higher than nature by virtue of the spirituality that has been
conferred upon them by God. No other beings in nature have such high status as humans; therefore, they do not deserve the same ethical considerations as humans do. It is strictly up to
human beings to decide what the value of nature is, since it has no value in and of itself.
NATURAL ORDER AND EVOLUTION ARGUMENT.
The other argument that supports humans’ dominion over nature is that which focuses on the evolutionary scale and the natural order of things that places human beings at the top of
everything. Humans, by virtue of their fantastic brains that are considered (by them) to be the highest achievement of nature and evolution, should obviously have dominion over
everything else in the natural world. Humans have shown through their ability to reason and invent that, even though nature towers over them in size, they are capable of harnessing it
and all of its aspects by flying; traveling on and staying under water; controlling rivers, streams, and seas; leveling the tallest mountains; cutting down nature’s biggest trees; and
overcoming nature’s most ferocious species of animals. And even though nature does in some respects have more control over humans (as demonstrated by earthquakes, tornadoes,
floods, and tidal waves), it is just a matter of time until humans will be able to control these aspects of nature too by being able to predict them and then by either averting them or
diminishing their destructive powers.
Human Reasoning versus Nature as Blind and Nonreasoning
The main reason that human beings are at the top of the natural order of things is that they have the capacity for reasoning that the rest of nature does not possess. Inanimate objects and
plants have no reasoning ability, and animals have it to only a minor degree, if at all. Because nature is blind and nonreasoning, it is obvious that human beings should have complete
dominion and control over it.
Civilization More Important than Nature
Because the human brain and its reasoning capacity is the highest form in the natural order, then civilization, including its institutions, technology, science, industry, and systems of all
kinds, should take precedence over nature. Neither nature nor any of its inhabitants except for human beings are capable of reasoning, analyzing, organizing, using a language, or
creating. Therefore, if nature must be destroyed to allow human civilization to expand and progress, then it simply must be, as it is less important in all of its aspects.
Moral Rights and Obligations
Because humans are at the top of the religious and natural orders, they and only they are deserving of moral rights and obligations; therefore, we have moral obligations only to ourselves
Ethics: Theory and Practice (Updated Edition) https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323130162/print?from...
3 of 14 12/5/2016 2:46 PM PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior
permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
and other human beings and not to nature in any of its aspects. Morality does not exist as far as the rest of nature is concerned but either comes from God or is established by humans for
humans; therefore, humans have no moral obligations toward any part of nature, nor does any part of nature have any moral rights. Nature, then, can be used and exploited in any way
that humans see fit, for it is merely there for their purposes.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE USE AND EXPLOITATION OF NATURE
Monistic Wholism versus Dominion and Domination
Critics of the dualistic arguments that human beings and nature are separate and that the former have been given dominion over the latter state that, first, religious arguments either have
been misinterpreted or are irrelevant. Since nature is part of God’s creation, say some religionists, it also should be treated with respect. Just because there are no souls in nonhumans
doesn’t mean they have no value whatsoever. Second, having dominion, as given by God, means that humans should treat nature as God treats humans, with respect, mercy, and love. If
humans are rulers over the world, then they should be benevolent and care for those beings under their rule who do not have the great human capacity for reason.
Also, some passages in the King James version of the Bible could be interpreted as supporting acting morally rather than destructively or dominatingly toward nature.
THE HEBREW BIBLE (CHRISTIAN OLD TESTAMENT):
First, in Genesis, Chapter 2 , Verse 15 , God put human beings in the garden of Eden “to dress (till, cultivate, work) it and to keep (preserve) it.” This verse suggests that humankind was to
be a steward and a caretaker of nature. This charge is a trust and a responsibility and human beings were expected to exercise their dominion in accordance with God’s principles and not
their own autonomy or desires.
Also, in Genesis, Chapter 9 , Verses 12 and 15 , it would seem that God made His covenant with Noah to include not only human beings but also animals:
Verse 12: And God said, “This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you for perpetual generations.”
Verse 15: “And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.”
THE NEW TESTAMENT:
Second, in the New Testament in Revelation, Chapters 7 and 9 , God again seems to express some concern for the nature He created:
Chapter 7 , Verses 2 and 3: And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God, and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to
hurt earth and sea, saying, “Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed a hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.”
Chapter 9 , Verses 3 and 4: And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth; and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power. And it was commanded
them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.
Nonreligionists argue that, first, just because people have evolved as higher beings because of their brains doesn’t mean that someday they won’t be replaced by a yet higher species.
Second, this argument does not mean that nature is inferior to them, but rather that it is equal to them in every respect. The proper relationship between humans and nature is not dualistic
but wholistic; that is, human beings are an integral part of nature and nature is an integral part of them. Therefore, instead of being a relationship of “survival of the fittest” or domination
of one species over all the rest, this relationship should be a reciprocal and wholistic one. The relationship should be one in which all aspects are a part of the whole of nature, to be
preserved and protected and to coexist in harmony.
Ecofeminism
Ecofeminism is a term that encompasses various philosophies that connect feminism and the ecology within a broader framework of a historical logic of dominion and domination.
Certain long held values and attitudes, like those previously discussed in this chapter, create patriarchal hierarchies and relationships of domination and subordination that are unjustified
and oppressive. The claim is that women and nature share a common history of oppressive domination. In contrast, morally just relationships that are both caring and cooperative will
improve the quality of life for all.
Reasoning Should Not Separate Humans from Nature
Because humans can reason, they should realize that nature is intrinsically valuable and must be nurtured and related to in a meaningful manner. Reason should not cause humans to
reject nature, but to prize it; as a matter of fact, having reason endows humans with much more responsibility toward nature and all it contains than other beings in nature who do not
possess it. Where animals are concerned, the importance of reasoning should be expanded to include sentientism (having mental states) so that animals can be respected even though
they cannot reason. There are also certain criteria put forth by some ethicists that clearly can be used to give rights to animals and require human obligations toward them (see the
following section on “Criteria for Animal Rights”).
CIVILIZATION VERSUS NATURE.
Nature, which contains most human needs and which relates to humans in a vital way, should never be made subordinate to civilization, which is human constructed. Civilization has its
value and importance, but nature should never be seriously endangered or destroyed at the expense of expanding civilization. For example, when builders are contemplating putting up a
housing development or other buildings, they should never destroy any part of the natural environment in which they are working. Plant and animal life must be preserved and not
destroyed as designing and building take place. Frank Lloyd Wright (1869–1959), the great American architect and advocate of organic architecture, believed that buildings should be
designed in such a way that they fit into the natural environment or even seem to emerge from it in an organic way. His famous cantilevered house at Willow Run is a perfect example of
this attitude.
MODERATE POSITION
Both of the preceding sets of arguments take extreme positions either for or against the use and exploitation of nature. The arguments for such use and exploitation advocate the total
subordination of nature to humans and the free use and exploitation of nature for whatever reasons humans deem acceptable. On the other hand, the arguments against these suggest that
nature must be considered as standing on an equal footing with humans and should never be used solely as a means to human ends. A more moderate position exists between these two
extremes, however, one in which nature generally is regarded as being important and significant, but not necessarily on the same footing with humans, and in which it may be used for
human means with some care so as not to seriously endanger or destroy it.
Ethics: Theory and Practice (Updated Edition) https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323130162/print?from...
4 of 14 12/5/2016 2:46 PM PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior
permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
This position generally agrees with the wholistic position , seeing nature and humans as being intimately related and requiring that humans treat nature with respect; however, it is not
against using nature for the good of humans but insists that this be done carefully, allowing for the preservation and protection of the environment and animals in the process and being
careful not to overuse either of these. Perhaps these three positions dealing with humans and their relationship to nature can be best exemplified through a discussion of animal rights and
human moral obligations toward animals.
CRITERIA FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS
Life and Being Alive
Some might argue that as long as something has life or is alive, it deserves moral consideration, and people have a moral obligation to protect and preserve life wherever it is found.
Critics of this position say that it is much too vague and unrealistic and that it would seem to violate the way nature itself works. A food chain exists in nature in which plants feed on
other plants, animals feed on plants, and animals feed on other animals. Nature is able to achieve a balance in this process in which species survive but do not necessarily become extinct
because they are not destroyed through over-hunting, overeating, or overkilling.
Human beings also make distinctions concerning whether just life and being alive constitute sufficient criteria to preserve life. They have and do follow nature in that they eat plants and
animals for their own survival just as the latter do for theirs. Further, humans even allow the killing of their own species in certain instances. Even though these are controversial areas,
humans do allow the termination of life in their own species in such cases as abortion, defense of the innocent, capital punishment, just wars, mercy death, and mercy killing. If humans
allow this in their own species, why not in others as well, especially if it is clearly for the good of the human species? Therefore, the fact that something or someone merely is alive or has
life does not in itself seem to constitute a strong argument against terminating that life for this or that good reason.
Having Interests
Joel Feinberg (1926–2004) states that “to have a right is to have a claim to something and against someone,” and goes on to say that only beings who can be said to have interests are
capable of claiming such rights.
1
He considers that animals do have interests, even though they can’t express them verbally, especially the interest not to suffer pain, and therefore he
would argue that animals do indeed have rights.
Attributes of Soul, Mind, and Feelings
Some would argue that rights for moral treatment are based upon whether a being has a soul, a mind, or feelings. The difficulty of proving the existence or nonexistence of a soul creates
problems with such a criterion. Furthermore, even if we could prove a soul’s existence, why should that be the only claim to moral rights?
As far as mind and feelings are concerned, animals, as sentient beings like humans, have to be described as having both of these merely through our observation of them. It seems
obvious that they have sense experiences, although often different from those of humans, and they seem to be able to express sadness, happiness, and anger as well as other emotions and
states of consciousness (e.g., conscious awareness and response to stimuli).
Reason
Although it is limited, animals do seem to also have an ability to reason, even if only on a rudimentary level. Current language experiments with chimpanzees and gorillas would seem to
indicate this. Furthermore, human beings with severe mental impairment can reason at no higher a level than some animals do, and generally we give them rights and feel we have moral
obligations toward them; therefore, why do we not also have such obligations toward animals? It would seem that the mere fact of being sentient (having mental states) in itself would
elicit from us humans at least the obligation not to inflict pain and suffering on one who is so.
WAYS OF DEALING WITH ANIMAL RIGHTS
Vegetarianism
One way of ensuring animal rights is to avoid using animals for food at all and to eat only vegetables. In this way, hunting or slaughtering animals for food no longer becomes necessary.
There are many kinds of people who call themselves vegetarians— some who will not eat any meat at all, some who will eat only poultry and fish, and some who will not even eat
animal products such as dairy and eggs. These latters are called vegans. Some extremists, such as the Jainists, will not even eat vegetables from plants that have to be killed to yield the
fruit or vegetable, such as potatoes. They will themselves not kill plants to eat their food but will wait until food drops from plants or trees or accept food donations from others who will
pick them.
It is often difficult to attain some consistency as we try to preserve the lives of plants and animals. For example, what is the difference, beyond the health reasons, between eating red
meat and eating poultry or fish? Is it any more moral to kill and eat a chicken or a fish than it is to kill and eat a cow or sheep?
Arguments Against Vegetarianism
Some argue that even though animals have interests and rights, those interests and rights are of less importance than those of humans, and therefore we have a right to use them for food,
just as animals in nature use other animals and vegetables for food. The moderate view states that with these rights go certain responsibilities not to make animals suffer or feel pain, or
not to slaughter whole species and make them extinct, but that humans still are entitled to kill animals for food within these moral limitations.
Sentientism
A second way of dealing with animal rights is to respect the fact that they have mental states that are to some extent akin to those of humans and are therefore deserving of rights. The
critics of this argument ask, “What about plants and trees?” Sentientism is too restrictive and ignores the livingness of nonanimals. Don’t our forests and fields deserve the same kind of
consideration as any other living being? These people generally argue for wholism.
Wholism
Every living thing is deserving of respect according to this view because humans, animals, and plants are part of a natural whole and must learn to live in harmony with one another. This
attitude relies heavily upon human beings and their reasoning, especially moral reasoning. The critics of this view argue against the blurring of important distinctions between humans,
animals, and plants and state that there is indeed a hierarchy of beings that allows us to deem the rights of certain beings to be more important than others’. For example, animal rights
activists are more concerned about animals than they are about plants and feel that animals should be given more consideration than wholism would allow.
Ethics: Theory and Practice (Updated Edition) https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323130162/print?from...
5 of 14 12/5/2016 2:46 PM PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior
permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
USE OF ANIMALS FOR FOOD
One of the most important issues, because of its prevalence, is the raising and slaughtering of animals for food. Is it moral to kill sentient beings, possessing all of the attributes described
previously, and use them for human consumption? There are people who stand on both sides of this issue and some who are in the middle. What is involved in both the raising and the
slaughtering of animals for this purpose?
Ways of Raising Animals for Food
In the past, wild animals were hunted and their flesh was used for food, while their skins or other body parts were used for clothes and other items. When humans became more civilized,
they began to domesticate animals, such as cows, pigs, sheep, and chickens, and to raise them for food. Animals were raised in the open air on farms or ranches alongside one or both of
their parents, allowed to graze in pastures, or fed corn or other grains or foods while sometimes being penned in the open air. This is called the “free-range” system of raising animals for
food. When the time came for slaughter, the animals generally were put to death as quickly and as painlessly as possible.
However, as the demand for more and better meat and other animal products increased, something called “factory farming” came into use. Animals are raised in very close pens, often
in the dark, and few of them ever see their mothers or the light of day. Even though killing animals for food is considered to be immoral by some, under the old system, they at least were
treated more or less humanely up to the time of slaughter.
The Vegetarian Position
Because vegetarians oppose using animals for food in any way, shape, or form, such people would be totally against the factory farming way of raising animals, calling it even more
decadent and corrupt than raising animals on the open farms as before. To raise and kill animals strictly for our needs is to use living, sentient beings merely as a means to our own ends
without even the kindness of letting them have a relatively happy and good life before we kill them.
The Carnivore Position
The carnivore or meat-eating position accepts this approach as a modernized and much more efficient way of giving humans the best-quality food possible. Because animals are here
basically for our use and have no intrinsic value, we have no moral obligations toward them, and their suffering has no meaning, since they are less than human. Therefore, any method
that brings humans the best quality of meat possible is morally acceptable regardless of how it affects the animals involved.
The Moderate Position
The moderate position might condone using animals for food but decry the factory farming method as cruel. It would state that animals may be used by humans for food but insist on the
free-range method of raising them and their painless slaughter as basic requirements for dealing morally with them. It would not, of course, deny the rights of vegetarians, but it would
not brand as immoral the eating of meat aside from the cruelty to animals in the process of raising or slaughtering them.
USE OF ANIMALS FOR EXPERIMENTATION
The use of animals for experimentation has gone on for many years and has resulted in the development of many of the greatest scientific and medical discoveries that have helped people
to rid themselves of all kinds of chronic and fatal diseases.
Arguments for Animal Experimentation
Scientists would argue that without the ability to use animals for experimentation, humans would have to be used, to their harm and sometimes fatality. Cures simply would not be found
for diseases, nor would training in certain procedures, such as surgeries, be possible. Because by law humans cannot be used for experimentation without their informed consent and
without tremendous safeguards being imposed, progress in science and medicine simply would have to come to a standstill if animals could not be used.
They would argue further that animals have much less value than human beings, so it is morally correct to use them for experimentation because what will be discovered will benefit
many people and sometimes the whole of humankind. Many of the animals scientists use are merely put to death because no one wants them and they cannot be kept in pounds or animal
shelters indefinitely; therefore, why not get some use out of them rather than just kill them? The mere fact that nobody wants them or will take care of them should make it all right to use
them to benefit humans.
Arguments Against Using Animals for Experimentation
In the view of animal rights activists, animals are thinking, feeling beings that suffer pain to the same extent and degree as humans. Just because they cannot tell us how much what is
being done to them hurts doesn’t mean they don’t feel the pain. Therefore, it is immoral to put animals through suffering, torture, and painful death just so that humans can make progress
in science and medicine. Even though Kant’s Practical Imperative was meant to apply to rational human beings, animal rights activists would apply it to animals, giving them the same
rights and status as human beings. Many experiments are absolutely unnecessary to the health and well-being of human beings, and yet experiments continue to put animals through
terrible tortures and death, merely in order to satisfy scientific curiosity or to protect corporations from litigation through, for example, animal testing for cosmetics.
Animal rights activists see absolutely no redeeming moral value in such experiments and in fact deem them to be terribly immoral. Even when the outcome of experiments is such as to
help scientists fight human diseases, other methods besides using animals merely as a means to our own ends must be found, or scientific progress simply should not be made. It is
immoral, in these activists’ eyes, to use animals for such purposes regardless of how much it may help mankind.
Moderate Position
The moderate position would not be against using animals for experimentation, but it would insist that, first of all, experiments must be absolutely necessary to the health and well-being
of human beings. Animals should never be experimented upon merely to satisfy human curiosity, nor should they ever be used for unnecessary experiments such as that described with
the beagles.
Second, every care must be taken to avoid inflicting upon animals more pain and suffering during the experiment than is actually needed. Every effort must be made to keep animals out
of pain while experiments are going on, and they should be given almost the same amount of respect that would be tendered toward our fellow humans. With these safeguards in mind,
necessary animal experimentation may be done.
Ethics: Theory and Practice (Updated Edition) https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323130162/print?from...
6 of 14 12/5/2016 2:46 PM PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior
permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
KILLING ANIMALS FOR SPORT
It Should Be Allowed
AN ANCIENT ACTIVITY OF MAN.
Several arguments exist for killing animals for sport. Hunting animals was an ancient activity of men in many of the tribes and cultures of the past and it remains so in cultures of the
present. Some would argue that it is a part of manhood to engage in the hunting and killing of animals for food, skins, trophies, or just for the thrill of the hunt.
CONTROLLING ANIMAL POPULATION.
Protagonists of this position would argue that killing animals at will is the only way of keeping the animal population under control. As humans have built ranches and farms farther into
the natural environment, wild animals often have attacked their crops or their domestic animals that are raised for food or for commercial reasons. Such animals must be trapped and
killed to preserve civilization. If the hunting of wild animals is not allowed, even the least ferocious of them will destroy crops and domestic animals. Further, they will overrun our
farms, ranches, and even our towns and cities, especially where there are suburbs. Therefore, to keep the animal population under control, hunting should not merely be allowed but
encouraged.
DESIRE FOR ANIMAL MEAT AND OTHER BODY PARTS.
First, despite the fact that we have all the domestic meat we may wish, many people like to eat wild game, such as duck, venison (deer meat), quail, and pheasant, and they should be
allowed to indulge their tastes.
Second, many people like to use the skins of wild animals of all kinds to make clothes, shoes, boots, handbags, floor coverings, and wall hangings. Even though all of these items can be
made from synthetic materials or from domestic animals’ skins, the more exotic wild skins are often prettier, rarer, and valued more highly. It is one thing, for example, to own a pair of
cowboy boots made of cowhide, but another to own a pair made from lizard, crocodile, porcupine, or rattlesnake hides. The higher prices for boots made from these skins attest to their
higher value.
Third, it is exciting to be able to have the heads of wild animals one has hunted and killed in the jungles and forests hanging on one’s walls to indicate prowess and bravery as a hunter.
And it is fun and different to have a wastebasket made of an elephant’s foot, carved ivory figures made from its tusks, and coats and capes made from the beautiful skins and furs of real
wild animals. Some people play tennis, swim, or ski for sport, so why shouldn’t the hunter or fisherman be allowed to pursue his or her own preferred sport?
It Should Not Be Allowed
AN ANCIENT ACTIVITY NO LONGER REQUIRED.
The very fact that hunting is an ancient activity should indicate that it is not necessarily needed in modern times. We no longer have the need for the meat, skins, or body parts of wild
animals. Furthermore, modern civilized males should not need to prove their masculinity at the expense of innocent and often beautiful animals who do nothing to harm them and who
should be allowed to roam free as they once did.
THE ANIMAL POPULATION WILL CONTROL ITSELF.
The major cause of the increase in the animal population is that humans have hunted and killed carnivores such as mountain lions, wolves, and bobcats. These predators used to hunt and
eat animals such as deer and rabbits, thereby naturally keeping the animal population under control. If hunting these animals were no longer allowed, then the animals they hunt would
become a menace as indeed they have. If this natural control system cannot be, then there must be more humane ways of controlling animal populations other than shooting them for
sport.
NO FURTHER NEED FOR WILD GAME OR BODY PARTS.
It is a decadent civilization, antagonists to hunting as a sport would say, that needs to hunt animals for their meat when perfectly good domestic meat exists for human consumption. In
addition, to use animals’ body parts, such as their skins, when there are perfectly good synthetic, man-made materials we can use for these purposes is indefensible. We can make
synthetic fur coats that look as if they are made of real furs and that do not require us to kill animals for them. The days of using wild animal skins and hides are over, or should be, and
there is absolutely no need to kill 50 lizards, for example, to make a pair of cowboy boots or club to death hundreds of baby harp seals to make fur coats for women. It is the height of
decadence that members of a civilized world have to continue to hunt and kill beautiful wild animals for these purposes.
The Moderate Position
KILLING FOR SPORT CAN BE ALLOWED ON A LIMITED BASIS.
We must recognize that other sports, such as skiing and swimming, do not involve the killing of innocent animals. This position recognizes the enjoyment some people get from the hunt
and will allow hunting for sport on a limited basis as long as animals, especially endangered species, generally are protected and that there are limits on the type, age, and sex of the
animal to be hunted. The hunt must be a fair one, allowing animals to try to save themselves. “Shooting fish in a barrel,” as the saying goes, should not be allowed, and poachers should
be fined or otherwise heavily penalized.
There should be specific seasons set aside by forest rangers and other officials, and rules protecting animals from extinction should be strictly enforced. Also, until the predator
population can be expanded, hunting should coincide with the need for control of populations of “huntable” animals. Here again, strict limits must be enforced to ensure that there is no
extinction of any species.
NO REASON TO KILL WILD ANIMALS FOR MEAT.
Except where hunting is allowed, as described, no hunting outside of established limits should take place for meat or body parts unless it is done by primitive tribes to get meat for their
villages when no other meat can be acquired.
Ethics: Theory and Practice (Updated Edition) https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323130162/print?from...
7 of 14 12/5/2016 2:46 PM PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior
permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
NO KILLING ANIMALS FOR BODY PARTS AND SKINS.
Again, except where allowed within the limits described, no hunting should take place to acquire animal body parts, such as heads for trophies, skins or furs for clothes and footwear, feet
for wastebaskets, or tusks for ivory. To help ensure that this type of hunting stops, civilized people should not demand such items and should make a strong effort not to order or purchase
them; they should openly declare their opposition to such wasteful and useless hunting. In other words, every effort should be made to restrict hunting to a minimum.
PROTECTION OF ENDANGERED SPECIES
People who are not particularly concerned about the extinction of species of animals, especially exotic species, cannot see what all the fuss is about. Why worry about such things?
Nature always has allowed various species to become extinct; perhaps it is now occurring by means of the advancement of human beings and their civilization. Why, for example, should
people try to preserve the California condor? It is one of the ugliest birds in existence and basically is a carrion or vulturelike bird feeding off the carcasses of dead animals. Why does it
matter whether we save such species or even those that are prettier to look at? There are several arguments that animal protectionists bring up regarding endangered species:
1. An irreverence for even a small segment of life affects one’s reverence for all life. If one has no consideration for even one species, then he or she is likely not to have
consideration for any other, including his own. Protectionists argue that human beings should protect and preserve all viable life in all of its forms, not just human life, as best they
can.
2. Most species of animals are beautiful or at least interesting to see and know about, especially in their natural habitats, so they should be available not only for us but also for our
children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. If we are not careful about encroaching upon animals’ habitats and destroying them in all the ways we can and do, then there will
be fewer and fewer species around for us and our kin to experience.
3. All animals seem to contribute in some way to the balance of nature and to the natural food chain. We may not clearly know how everything fits into the overall plan of nature,
but we should be careful not to upset the balance any more than we have to. It is one thing for nature to take its course and to make certain species extinct, but whenever it is
obvious that humans, not nature, are the cause of destruction or extinction, we should cease what we are doing, or do what we are doing less, so as not to affect nature and its
inhabitants adversely.
These are the reasons animal protectionists give for doing our utmost to protect and preserve all species of animals, and especially those that are becoming endangered. Obviously such
people would be totally against hunting any of these species and also would tend to want to curtail the progress and encroachment of civilization upon nature wherever it tends to threaten
the existence of such species.
NON-WESTERN PERSPECTIVES ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Because environmental problems are global in scope and implications raised by these important issues of concern affect people the world over, it will be worthwhile to briefly note the
value of non-Western ethical viewpoints. Asian values offer productive alternatives to rights-based moralities that dominate Western societies. There has been much recent debate
concerning Asian values, and one is led to assume that there is one distinct set of values common to all Asians. This assumption is surely false and misleading, because Asia covers a
huge geographical area and Asian traditions include Daoist, Confucian, Buddhist, Neo-Confucian, Hindu, and Jain values. Furthermore, Roman Catholicism is the dominant religion in
the Philippines, and Islam is widespread in Pakistan and Indonesia. So when we talk of the values of Asia, it becomes obvious that there is a plurality of ethical thought systems that
could be included for discussion. However, four Asian ethical traditions, two originating in India and two in China, seem especially well suited to addressing environmental issues.
Ethical Traditions of South Asia: Hinduism and Buddhism
The fundamental aim of philosophical thinking in India and the ethical traditions of South Asia is to bring about liberation from all suffering. The immanent worldviews of Hinduism
and Buddhism , which stress the oneness and interconnectedness of the natural order, present clear alternatives to Western transcendent moral perspectives where human beings stand
over/against nature. Also, there is no clear distinction between the sacred and the profane, because philosophy in India is not separated from religious activity. Wisdom in South Asian
cultures is wholistic in nature and is manifest as knowledge and compassion. “True wisdom is the harmony of mind and heart.”
2
For the Hindu “all is one.” As one scholar states,
“Oneness is not the one word to describe the essence of Hinduism, but it is as close as we can get to a one-word characterization.”
3
This fundamental principle is expressed as the truth
that atman (the individual soul) is Brahman (the world soul). Ignorance of this insight leads to the illusion of a separate existence standing over/against its ground. This failure to
apprehend the most basic truth about the nature of self and the nature of the universe constitutes the major reason for bondage, misery, and destruction in the world. The goal of Hinduism
thus is to gain a discriminatory self-transforming knowledge of reality. Acting in the light of this knowledge has a liberating effect upon all existence.
Right conduct for the Hindu is understood in terms of the concept of dharma . This notion is derived from the root dhr, meaning “to nourish.” The term’s etymology may be further
traced to the word rita —the order of the universe. Dharma is action that is selfless and without attachment; thus it promotes the oneness and wholeness of all things. Hindus believe that
moral order permeates all existence. This idea is played out in the notion of karma —the law of sowing and reaping or the principle of moral cause and effect. How is rita, “the moral
order of the universe,” related to human actions and their consequences? Hindu scholar Saral Jhingran tells us that
the moral quality of our deeds, thoughts and desires not only conditions our future character, but also manipulates the natural world order, so that we are thrown into external
circumstances that are most suited to materialize or effect the kind of rewards and punishments which our moral character deserves.
4
“Right conduct,” dharma, requires that one take responsibility for one’s deeds and thoughts in ways that lead to “personal self-realization,” moksha , and at the same time nourishes
society and existence itself.
Buddhism shares the basic Hindu cosmology and places emphasis on the inter-connectedness of all things. According to Buddhist teaching, all things are intimately connected in the
sense that they affect everything else. Like the ecological system itself, existence is an intricate, interdependent web within which all cause-and-effect relationships occur. In light of this
insight one may conclude that, likewise, all human actions impact all other things. Such a metaphysical scheme frames ethical thinking in terms of global accountability.
Buddhist doctrine also emphasizes the Noble Truth of Suffering. That “life is suffering (duhkha)” is the central truth of Buddhism and the Buddha’s estimate of the world condition.
The goal of Buddhist teaching and practice is to achieve nirvana, liberation from suffering (duhkha), and release from the cycle of rebirth. Suffering (duhkha) is brought about by
ignorance. On the one hand, many wrongly identify existence with being and thus experience duhkha as a result of attachments to this world and the things of the world. On the other
hand, others misidentify existence with nonbeing and, as a consequence, experience duhkha in the rejection of life. Although Buddhism teaches the doctrine of “No Self,” which is the
denial of the self or ego as a separate and permanent entity; it does not deny self as a concrete, living, dynamic entity. Life on Buddhist terms is a process and is constantly changing, yet
every moment holds within itself both being and nonbeing. Right living consists in following the Middle Way —the path between a life of attachment (and the extremes of
self-indulgence and greed) and the rejection of life and self-denial or deprivation.
The Middle Way is articulated as the Eightfold Path:
• right view (knowledge)
• right intention (resolve)
• right speech
Ethics: Theory and Practice (Updated Edition) https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323130162/print?from...
8 of 14 12/5/2016 2:46 PM PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior
permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
• right conduct
• right livelihood
• right effort
• right mindfulness
• right concentration
Relative to the preceding eight points, one must negotiate the balance between the extremes of materialism and its attachments and ritualism, which denies the value of material
existence. Since the goal of Buddhism is to liberate all sentient beings from suffering, right living stresses the primary of the virtue of compassion.
Ethical Traditions of East Asia: Daoism and Confucianism
The grand goal of Chinese thought is to achieve balance and harmony. Both Daoism and Confucianism presuppose a dynamic, aesthetically ordered, yin-yang constitutive cosmos.
Yin-yang originally referred to the shaded and the sunny, and the two notions represent complementary, interpenetrating opposites, reciprocals, or counterpoints that move around the still
point of the universe and account for change. Examples of yin would include dark, female, wet, and soft, while illustrations of yang are light, male, dry, and hard. In a Chinese world,
harmony and balance are sought between other yin/yang counterpoints: heaven and earth, intuition and reason, others and self, and nature and society. Because Daoism is chiefly
identified with nature and Confucianism with society, the two are sometimes said to represent the yin and yang of Chinese thought.
Daoist thought is embodied in the person of Laozi, to whom is attributed the philosophical classic the Daodejing —roughly translated, The Book of the Way and Virtue. Although it is
doubtful that such an individual actually existed, tradition suggests he was an older contemporary of Kongzi (Confucius) and lived in the sixth century B.C. This book is the Daoist
“Bible” and is the chief source for later Daoist writers, such as Zhaungzi (fourth century B.C.). It is the primary source for the entire Daoist canon. It is also the philosophical basis for the
Daoist religion and figures significantly in traditional Chinese medicine, the martial arts, and feng shui.
In Daoist thought the key concept is the dao —“the way.” It refers to the way of ultimate reality. It is also the way of nature and, ethically, it is the way an individual ought to live. In other
words, one ought to gear his or her life to the power and rhythms of the dao. One ought to live in harmony with nature. Because the dao is all pervasive it eliminates the source of all
conflict and strife by flowing through and embracing all things. The Daodejing teaches that no living being can transgress its natural limits without upsetting the balance of the dao. Thus,
the Daoist attempts to live in harmony with the underlying patterns that are the source of nature and charge.
Chapter 25 of the Daodejing illustrates the harmonious relationships we have been discussing:
There is something undefined and complete, coming into existence before
Heaven and Earth.
How still it was and formless, standing alone, and undergoing no change,
reaching everywhere and in no danger (of being exhausted).
It may be regarded as the Mother of all things.
I do not know its name,
and I give it the designation of the Tao (the Way or Course).
Making an effort (further) to give it a name I call it The Great.
Great, it passes on (in constant flow).
Passing on, it becomes remote.
Having become remote, it returns.
Therefore the Tao is great;
Heaven is great;
Earth is great;
and the (sage) king is also great.
In the universe are four that are great, and the (sage) king is one of them.
Man takes his law from the Earth;
the Earth takes its law from Heaven;
Heaven takes its law from the Tao.
The law of the Tao is its being what it is.
5
Unfortunately, ethically unchecked desire leads to the pursuit of excessive wealth, power, and artificial goods. As a result the natural balance is upset and so is the well-being of the
individual, society, other creatures, and larger biological systems. Natural resources are exploited for personal gain or ravaged in a mad rush to secure corporate profits. Daoist wisdom
teaches that such unnatural and excessive desires never lead to a satisfying, fulfilled life and are destructive of the very processes that sustain life.
Confucian ethics, unlike Daoist thought, was concerned to establish social structures and conventions that would ensure right conduct—conduct that would promote harmony with the
dao. Kongzi (Confucius), in dealing with the human world, attempted to ground his philosophy in the natural order of things. He reasoned that human beings, by nature, are social beings.
Human beings, he concluded, are nourished, cared for, and flourish best within the structure of the family as governed by the Five Cardinal Relationships. This notion of the family is
extended to the entire nation and all relationships are governed by the virtues ren —“humanness,” “goodness,” “human heartedness,” or “humaneness”; li —“ritual propriety” or
“appropriateness” as defined by rites and ritual; and shu —“reciprocity” or “mutual consideration.” By way of the virtue li, Kongzi ritualized proper conduct and life, which, in effect,
became a performance designed to further the natural harmony. According to Master Kong, “Achieving harmony is the most valuable function of observing ritual propriety.”
6
The difference in both the focus and emphasis of distinct cultural views with respect to environmental ethics offers opportunities for mutual benefit, learning, and enrichment by opening
up the scope of the dialogue. In a world of pluralistic cultural values an expanded field of possibilities makes room for alternative responses to serious environmental challenges that are
not easily resolved within the limitations of a single cultural viewpoint.
CONCLUSION
As has been the case with most of the moral issues presented in this book, diligent effort has been made to present as fairly as possible the extreme pro and con positions. In some cases
moderate positions were also presented. Perhaps the most important question we are left with, after contemplating the moral issues connected with the natural environment, is to what
extent it is possible for a balance to be achieved between civilization and its progress and the natural environment and all it contains. Civilization in and of itself is not a bad thing.
Human beings have had magnificent achievements through their civilization; at times they have even worked ingeniously to preserve what is best in nature. People who argue for such
preservation feel that human beings must never forget that they come from and are a part of nature and that they must always treat it with respect. To the extent that they do not, they will
eventually only hurt themselves as well as all the living beings around them.
Cases for Study and Discussion
Ethics: Theory and Practice (Updated Edition) https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323130162/print?from...
9 of 14 12/5/2016 2:46 PM PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior
permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
CASE 1 Seal Hunting
Every year to satisfy the demands for seal fur coats, hundreds, even thousands, of baby harp seals are bashed to death on the ice by groups of villagers for whom the sale of such animal
skins is the major industry of their village. What occurs is a bloody massacre of a large part of the seal community. Animal rights activists decry this wholesale slaughter of an animal
species that is quite innocent and that does not endanger anyone’s life. Such slaughter takes place for the sole purpose of satisfying female vanity throughout the “civilized” world when
perfectly good synthetic furs could serve the same purpose. The villagers, on the other hand, make their living basically by killing the baby seals and probably would live in poverty if
they didn’t have this particular business activity. This issue could be extended to include many other animals as well. If you know of other species involved in such “harvesting,” present
the problem and answer the following questions for that issue also. Do you think that what the villagers are doing is morally right? Why or why not? Can the needs of the villagers be
balanced against the lives of the seals? How? What solution to this problem would you suggest?
CASE 2 Killing Animals for Furs
In an Ann Landers column, an upset woman wrote in because someone had criticized her for wearing a rabbit fur coat. She had been asked, “I wonder how many beautiful rabbits died so
you could have that coat?” The woman noticed that her questioner was wearing a down coat and retorted, “Do you think the geese they got the down from which to make your coat are
still alive?” Ann Landers stated that most of the fur produced in North America is from animals raised on family farms and added that in her opinion it is no more cruel to kill animals for
their fur than it is to kill them for food or their hides. She wondered further whether critics of killing animals for fur would be willing to give up their shoes, belts, handbags, saddles, and
luggage and any meat they might eat at meals.
7
What do you think of these statements and questions? Is the killing of animals any more justified for food, hides, or feathers than it is for
furs? Why or why not? Support your answers in detail. Does it make any difference whether animals are raised on family farms or trapped in the wild? Why or why not? Is there any way
to be consistent or to justify inconsistencies when it comes to the use of animals for food, hides, feathers, or furs? For example, someone wrote a letter to the editor of a newspaper stating
that the setting on fire by the Animal Liberation Front of a store that sold animal furs is no more justified than setting a restaurant on fire for killing and cooking chickens. How would
you sort out and differentiate these issues? Explain in detail.
CASE 3 Oil Spills
A major oil corporation constantly advertises in newspapers, magazines, and on radio and television about what it is doing to protect the environment and endangered species. At the
same time, it is responsible for oil spills caused by carelessness both on land and at sea, which, of course, destroy all kinds of sea life and animals that live there. When such spills occur,
unless they happen to hit the newspapers because they cannot be hidden from public view, employees are told to clean up the spills but not to tell anyone outside of the company or even
inside the company who does not already know about it. This, of course, would seem to be hypocrisy of the worst kind. Do you think the oil company should spend more time and money
on preventing oil spills than on building shelters for some endangered species? Why or why not? What would make the company less hypocritical? Answer in detail. Should the company
keep such spills secret when they are unknown to the public, or does it owe the public the right to have that information as well as the advertisements about what they’re doing to protect
the environment? Why or why not? Is it all right to keep such spills secret because it’s good for business? Why or why not?
CASE 4 Animal Testing and Cosmetics
A certain company that manufactures cosmetics uses rabbits to test the irritancy level of its products to their eyes for purposes of making nonirritating cosmetics for the eyes of women
who will use such cosmetics. Large doses of any substance to be used are injected into one eye of the rabbits, while the other eye is left alone for comparison of any damage done. The
test is painful, and anesthetics are not used on rabbits. Since large doses have to be used to provide a greater margin of safety for possible eventual use on humans; permanent eye damage
often occurs. No tests that avoid using animals have ever been developed. Is this type of testing moral? Why or why not? Would the use of rabbits for this purpose be more morally
acceptable if they were given painkillers? Why or why not? Since the products are to be used on humans, should the company ask for human volunteers with the same safeguards being
required as for other types of human experimentation? Why or why not? Do you think animal experimentation is more morally justifiable if it’s done for medical reasons—for example,
to find a pain relief medication or cure for certain diseases? Why or why not?
CASE 5 Extinction of Small Fish
A dam was proposed to be built on a certain river in a natural setting that would produce hydroelectric power and create recreational activities, such as boating, swimming, and
waterskiing. The only problem, as environmentalists see it, is that there is a certain species of small fish found only in this river that will become extinct if the dam is built. The fish is not
used for food or sport; in fact, no one knows what purpose it serves by being in the river. Should the dam be built? Why or why not? Would it make a difference to your answer if the
small fish were a good food fish or could be used in some other commercial way, or does its possible extinction constitute a sufficient reason to not build the dam? Explain your answer
in detail.
Chapter Summary
I. Key terms
A. Speciesism is a prejudice for one’s own species and against other species.
B. Sentientism is the theory that only those beings with mental states should be the subject of moral concern.
C. Wholism is a conception of nature that sees humans and nature together as forming a moral community.
D. Vegetarianism is the refusal to eat the flesh of animals in favor of a diet of vegetables.
E. An endangered species is a species of animals in danger of becoming extinct because of the encroachment of civilization upon the natural environment and because of
careless exploitation by human beings.
II. Nature and morality
A. Human beings have discovered in recent years that natural resources, including animals, plants, and trees, are not boundless but are subject to diminishment, destruction,
and loss.
B. This will affect us with regard to the social aspect of our morality (refer to Chapter 1 for a discussion of the four aspects), but many consider that nature also is valuable in
itself.
III. Environmental ethical issues
A. We cannot continue the waste and destruction of natural resources but must take action now to conserve and replenish what we take from nature for our own uses.
B. Neither can we continue to exploit, misuse, and pollute the environment.
C. There also is the ethical issue of animal rights.
1. Many people feel that with our modern products and food availability, we no longer should be destroying animals for food and body parts (fur, skin, tusks).
2. Also, we must be much more humane in the way we raise domestic animals for food.
3. We either should not use animals at all for scientific experimentation or use them only sparingly and, again, humanely.
4. We must also be more careful to ensure that various animal species are not decimated or made extinct.
IV. Our attitude toward nature and what lies behind it
A. These attitudes have not developed overnight.
B. Platonic dualism and the beginnings of Western philosophy, which essentially saw human beings as being separate from and superior to the external world and nature,
tended to split human beings off from nature.
C. Judeo-Christian teachings in the Bible taught that human beings are imbued with a soul whereas the rest of nature is not, and that human beings have dominion over all
of nature and should “go forth and multiply.”
Ethics: Theory and Practice (Updated Edition) https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323130162/print?from...
10 of 14 12/5/2016 2:46 PM PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior
permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
D. With the advancement of science and technology nature has become, at least from the human point of view, more and more subservient to human beings.
E. Industrialization not only has increased the use of natural resources for its operation but also has polluted the environment through the disposing of waste.
F. Through industrialization, population increases, and the greater need for land and space, civilization has encroached upon nature, destroying more and more of the natural
environment.
V. Arguments for use and exploitation of the natural environment
A. There are two types of the dominion-overnature argument.
1. Religious: Western religions seem to condone this type of dominion citing various statements in the Bible.
2. Natural order and evolution: In this view, human beings are considered to be the highest evolved species in nature, so they should exercise power over the rest of
it.
B. Civilization is more important than nature. Because humans constitute the highest evolutionary and religious order, human civilization should take precedence over nature.
C. Humans and only humans are deserving of moral rights and obligations.
VI. Arguments against the use and exploitation of nature
A. Monistic wholism versus dominion and domination . Human beings and nature are parts of a whole and not separated into dominant and subordinate groups.
1. Religious arguments about the superiority of humans have either been misinterpreted or are irrelevant.
2. Ecofeminism connects feminism and the ecology and rejects relationships of domination and subordination that are both unjustified and oppressive.
3. That humans have evolved to a higher level of intelligence does not mean they automatically are entitled to dominion over nature. Someday they could be replaced
by a more advanced species.
4. The proper relationship between human beings and nature is wholistic rather than dominant and subordinate.
B. Reasoning should not separate humans from nature but should unite them both more closely. Reasoning should lead to an acceptance of nature as being intrinsically
valuable.
C. Nature, which contains most human needs and which relates to humans in a vital way, should never be made subordinate to civilization, which is human constructed.
VII. The moderate position
A. Nature is important and significant but not necessarily on the same footing with humans.
B. It may therefore be used for human ends but with care so as not to endanger or destroy it.
C. This position generally agrees with the wholistic position but is not against using nature for the good of humans as long as it is done carefully, allowing for the
preservation and protection of the environment.
VIII. Criteria for animal rights
A. One criterion states that anything that is alive is deserving of moral consideration. Critics would argue against this.
1. It is too vague and unrealistic, and also it seems to violate the way in which nature itself works (e.g., the natural food chain).
2. Even human life is not valued merely for its own sake; the taking of human life can be declared to be moral under certain circumstances.
B. Those who have interests have rights. Therefore, because animals have interests (e.g., to survive, not to suffer pain), they have rights.
C. Attributes of soul, mind, and feelings. Some would argue that moral consideration is based upon whether or not beings have these attributes.
1. The difficulty of proving the existence of a soul is a problem with this argument as is the question of why such an attribute should be the only criterion for moral
consideration. And who knows whether or not animals have souls? Some religions believe they do.
2. Animals have both minds and feelings and therefore satisfy this aspect of the criterion.
D. Proponents would state that animals seem to possess the power of reason, at least at the rudimentary level (e.g., chimpanzees and gorillas can learn sign language) and
therefore should be considered as having moral rights.
1. Some humans have severe mental impairment and can barely reason, if at all. If we have moral obligations toward them, why not toward animals?
2. It would seem that a creature’s having mental states at all (being sentient) would require from us at least the obligation not to inflict pain upon it.
3. Opponents of animal rights would argue that any mental states that animals may have are so far below those of humans that animals are deserving of little or no
moral concern.
IX. Ways of dealing with animal rights
A. True vegetarians (vegans) do not use animals for food at all.
B. There are arguments against vegetarianism.
1. Even if animals have rights, they are less important than the rights of humans, so the latter have a right to use the former for food, just as animals use other animals,
according to nature’s way.
2. Sentientism , which states that animals should be morally respected because they have mental states, is criticized because it tends to eliminate nonanimal life-forms
such as plants, flowers, and trees.
3. Advocates of wholism would argue that sentientism and vegetarianism are too narrow and merely single out one aspect of nature for moral concern; they argue that
all of nature is deserving of such respect. Critics of wholism, on the other hand, argue that it blurs proper distinctions in the hierarchy of beings in nature.
X. Use of animals for food
A. Is it moral to kill sentient beings possessing all of the attributes previously described and use them for food?
B. Ways of raising animals for food.
1. In the past, domesticated animals were raised in the open air on ranches or farms.
2. Now, given the greater demand for meat and other animal products (e.g., eggs, milk), factory farming, in which animals often are raised in narrow pens without light
and air and often are separated from their mothers, is the method used.
C. The vegetarian is absolutely against raising animals for food; moreover, vegetarians are aghast at the current methods used.
D. The carnivore (meat eater) feels that the main purpose of raising animals is for food and that any method that will give human beings better-quality meat more efficiently
is certainly acceptable.
E. The moderate position condones using animals for food but does not accept wholesale slaughter, factory farming, or mistreatment of any kind where animals are
concerned.
XI. Use of animals for experimentation
A. There are several arguments for animal experimentation.
1. Scientists argue that without our ability to use animals for experimentation, humans would have to be used and would be harmed or killed, or no cures for diseases
could ever be found.
2. Because, by law, humans cannot be used for experimentation without their informed consent and the application of strict guidelines, scientific and medical progress
would simply come to a standstill without animals.
3. They argue further that animals have much less value than human beings, so it is morally correct to use the former for purposes of experimentation.
4. Many of the animals used would just be put to sleep anyway because they are not wanted; therefore, why not have their deaths serve a purpose and help human
beings?
B. Arguments against using animals for experimentation also exist.
1. Animals are thinking and feeling beings that suffer pain to the same extent and degree as do humans; therefore, it is immoral to make animals suffer and die merely
so that humans can make progress in science and medicine.
2. Furthermore, many experiments are absolutely unnecessary to the health and well-being of human beings and are done simply out of scientific curiosity.
3. Animal rights activists feel that it is absolutely immoral to use animals for any experiments and that if other means cannot be found, then scientific progress simply
will not be able to be made.
C. There is also a moderate position.
Ethics: Theory and Practice (Updated Edition) https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323130162/print?from...
11 of 14 12/5/2016 2:46 PM PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior
permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
1. Moderates would not be opposed to using animals for experimentation but would insist that such experiments must be absolutely necessary to the health and
well-being of humans and not be done merely to satisfy human curiosity.
2. Care must be taken not to inflict upon animals more pain and suffering during the experiment than is absolutely necessary—every effort must be made to keep
animals out of pain while experiments are going on.
XII. Killing animals for sport
A. There are arguments for killing animals for sport.
1. Hunting is an ancient activity that is a significant rite of manhood. It was done in the earliest tribes and cultures and should continue on even today.
2. It is the best way of keeping the animal population under control; if not controlled, animals will destroy our crops, kill our domesticated animals, and encroach upon
our cities.
3. There is a need for wild animal meat and body parts.
(a) Even though they have all the domesticated animal meat they might need, many people prefer wild game, such as venison and pheasant, and they should be
allowed to indulge their tastes.
(b) Even though clothes and other items can be made from the skins of domestic animals or from synthetic products, the more exotic skins and body parts (snake
skin, elephant tusks, fur) are prettier and rarer, and so valued more highly.
(c) It is exciting to have the heads of wild animals a hunter has killed displayed on the walls, and it is unique to have such possessions as elephant-foot
wastebaskets.
B. There are also arguments against killing animals for sport.
1. Hunting is an ancient activity that is, however, no longer required. Men originally hunted to gain for food and clothing, but now both can be acquired without killing
wild animals to do so.
2. The animal population will control itself if humans will only allow it to do so. Killing animals such as the mountain lion has eliminated from nature predators that
would control other animal populations by hunting and killing them for food.
3. There is absolutely no further need for wild game or body parts, given the plethora of domesticated animal meat and wonderful human-made products, such as
synthetic furs, that are now available.
C. The moderate position seeks a midpoint between the extremes.
1. Killing for sport can be allowed on a limited basis as long as endangered species are protected and other species don’t become endangered.
2. There is no reason to kill wild animals for meat or body parts except where and when it is allowed within the limits of (1) previously mentioned.
XIII. Protection of endangered species
A. An irreverence for even a small segment of life affects one’s reverence for all life.
B. Most species are beautiful or at least interesting and different, and they should be available not only for us but also our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren to
see.
C. All animals seem to contribute in some way to the balance of nature and its food chain, and we should be careful not to upset that balance.
XIV. Non-Western perspectives on environmental issues
A. Because environmental problems are global in scope and implications raised by these important issues of concern affect people the world over, it will be worthwhile to
briefly note the value of non-Western ethical viewpoints.
B. The immanent worldviews of Hinduism and Buddhism , which stress the oneness and interconnectedness of the natural order, present clear alternatives to Western
transcendent perspectives where human beings stand over/against nature.
C. The grand goal of Chinese thought is to achieve harmony and balance.
D. In Daoist thought the key concept is the dao —the way. It refers to the way of ultimate reality, the way of nature, and, ethically, the way that one ought to live.
E. Confucianism attempts to extend the way by establishing social conventions and Kongzi (Confucius) ritualized proper conduct in order that life, in effect, becomes a
performance that is designed to further natural harmony.
F. In a world of pluralistic cultural values an expanded field of possibilities makes room for alternative responses to serious environmental challenges that are not easily
resolved within the limitations of a single cultural viewpoint.
Ethics Problem
8
: How Can We Understand an Obligation to the Environment?
When taking up the matter of environmental ethics, many people affirm that we have a moral obligation to protect the environment. I don’t want to ask if you agree or disagree, but rather
if you can make sense of the claim at all. Can we have an obligation to the environment itself, or are we really saying that we have obligations to people (present or future who rely upon
the environment)? If we can have a direct obligation to the environment, what is it about an environment that is the proper recipient of that obligation? Is it the animal life in it? Is it the
land itself? Do we have the same obligations to all environments (desert and rain forest alike)?
If our obligation is really to the people who depend upon the environment, would we be doing anything intrinsically wrong if we destroyed our planet? That is, imagine we developed
adequate space travel such that we could find and colonize another suitable planet for all to live on. If every person was safe, prosperous, and consenting on the new planet, would we be
doing anything inherently wrong by wringing the last resource out of this planet until every ecosystem was literally destroyed?
Views of the Major Ethical Theories on Environmental Ethics
Describe as fully as you can how each of the major ethical theories—ethical egoism, utilitarianism, divine command theory, Kant’s duty ethics, Ross’s prima facie duties, and virtue
ethics—probably would deal with the ethical issues related to the environment including the cases at the end of the chapter.
1. “Challenges in Environmental Ethics,” Holmes Rolston III.
2. “The Case for Animal Rights,” Tom Regan.
Critical Thinking Questions
1. Identify the main environmental threats we are facing and what you feel we should do to address these threats. What solutions have been proposed? Evaluate the likely costs and
benefits.
2. Discuss how environmental issues are related to population issues.
3. Discuss the ways in which economic growth benefits the environment.
4. Do you believe that there are serious climate change issues, including global warming, that are caused by human activities? Give reasons to support your answer.
5. What is the basis of human obligations to the environment? State and defend your position.
6. What is a consumer society? Define a consumer society and cite examples of such societies. How could these societies reduce consumption of resources?
7. Choose a non-Western ethical perspective and, utilizing particular examples, explain how such an analysis can be beneficial in solving global environmental problems.
8. Do you agree with the view that our destructive attitude toward the environment is derived from our backgrounds in Western philosophy and Western religion? If you believe
that neither have influenced our attitude, then what has caused us to have such an attitude? Answer in detail giving reasons.
9. Discuss in detail if you believe that the Judeo-Christian Bible really does not condone the way in which we control, waste, and destroy nature, then present evidence from the
Bible or Judeo-Christian teachings that encourage reverence, protection, and preservation of nature.
Ethics: Theory and Practice (Updated Edition) https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323130162/print?from...
12 of 14 12/5/2016 2:46 PM PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior
permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
10. Do you think the only and major reason for preserving and protecting nature is to protect our own good, or do you feel that we have a moral obligation toward nature because it
is intrinsically valuable? Present arguments in detail.
11. Present arguments as to why we should protect endangered species. What differences does it really make if certain species become extinct? Doesn’t nature itself cause some
species to become extinct? What difference does it make if human beings do the same thing? Answer in detail.
12. What is more important: civilization and progress or the natural environment? Why?
13. Do you believe that animals have rights, and that we have an obligation to protect these rights? Give reason to support your answer. If you argue that they do have rights, what
are they, and why?
14. What is your position on vegetarianism, and why? Defend or attack the vegetarian position, giving good reasons and arguments for whichever side you take.
15. Do you believe we should use animals for experimentation purposes? Why or why not? Take a pro, con, or moderate position, and discuss why was it chosen.
16. Do you think it is moral to hunt animals for meat, body parts, or sport? Give good reasons for your answer.
17. Select an important issue in environmental ethics and analyze it from a Hindu, Buddhist, Daoist, or Confucian perspective.
Notes
1. Joel Feinberg, “The Rights of Animals and Unborn Generations,” in Philosophical Environmental Crisis, ed. W. Blackstone (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1974), 48–68.
2. Michael C. Brannigan, The Pulse of Wisdom: The Philosophies of India, China and Japan, 2nd edn. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning, 2000), 4.
3. Ward J. Fellows, Religions East and West (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1979), 71.
4. Saral Jhingran, Aspects of Hindu Morality (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1989), 34.
5. James Legge, trans., The Tao Te Ching of Lao Tzu in Max Müller, ed., Sacred Books of the East, Vol. 39. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1891), 67–68.
6. Roger T. Ames and Henry Rosemont Jr., trans., The Analects of Confucius: A Philosophical Translation (New York: Ballantine, 1998), 74.
7. Ann Landers, “For Fur or Food, Killing’s the Same,” The Bakersfield Californian 103, no. 86 (March 27, 1989), D4.
8. Ethics Problem, “How Can We Understand an Obligation to the Environment?” was written by John Santiago and used with his permission.
Ethics: Theory and Practice (Updated Edition) https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323130162/print?from...
13 of 14 12/5/2016 2:46 PM PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior
permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
Back Matter
HUMANITARIAN ETHICS: Thiroux’s 5 Principles
The Value of Life Principle
The first moral principle, which states that human life should be preserved, protected, and valued; sometimes referred to as the Sanctity of Life principle. In this book it means a
reverence for life and an acceptance of death.
The Principle of Goodness or Rightness
The ultimate principle of any moral system because moral and ethical mean good or right. This principle requires us to do three things: first, to promote goodness over badness; second,
to cause no harm or badness; and third, to prevent badness or harm.
The Principle of Justice or Fairness
The principle that states that it is not enough to do good and avoid bad, but that some effort must be made to distribute the good and bad resulting from our actions.
The Principle of Truth Telling or Honesty
The principle that states that human beings always ought to strive to tell the truth or be honest except when this would interfere with or seriously violate the principles of Goodness, Value
of Life, and Justice. This principle must be abided by if there is to be meaningful communication and human relationships.
The Principle of Individual Freedom
The principle that states that human beings ought to be free to pursue their own values and morality as long as these do not seriously conflict with or violate the other four basic moral
principles (Value of Life, Goodness, Justice, and Truth Telling or Honesty).
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I Applying Humanitarian Ethics to the Moral Problems of the Taking of Human Life
APPENDIX II Applying Humanitarian Ethics to the Moral Problems of Allowing Someone to Die, Mercy Death, and
Mercy Killing
APPENDIX III Applying Humanitarian Ethics to the Moral Problems of Abortion
APPENDIX IV Applying Humanitarian Ethics to the Moral Problems of Lying, Cheating, Breaking Promises, and
Stealing
APPENDIX V Applying Humanitarian Ethics to the Moral Problems of Human Sexuality
APPENDIX VI Applying Humanitarian Ethics to Moral Problems in Medicine (Bioethics)
APPENDIX VII Applying Humanitarian Ethics to Moral Problems in Business (Business and Media Ethics)
APPENDIX VIII Applying Humanitarian Ethics to Environmental Ethics
SUPPLEMENTARY READING
GLOSSARY
Index
Ethics: Theory and Practice (Updated Edition) https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323130162/print?from...
14 of 14 12/5/2016 2:46 PM
