KIM Woods

  Be sure to reply to your classmates and instructor. Try to attempt to take the conversation further by examining their claims or arguments in more depth or responding to the posts that they make to you. Keep the discussion on target and try to analyze things in as much detail as you can.

·         Na-Sha Roberson

TREATMENT OF ANIMALS QUESTION 1 Singer argues that there is no moral justification for denying moral consideration to animals. Can you think of a reason why our moral consideration should include all humans regardless of their level of cognitive ability, yet denied to non-human animals simply because they have lower levels of cognitive abilities (though still higher in some cases than those of human infants and some mentally disabled humans)? What response might he have to your way of drawing the line between the types of beings that should get moral consideration and those that should not?  I have a hard time with this particular discussion post. On one hand, I eat meat on a regular basis, and as Otto von Bismarck once said that “one cannot enjoy politics or sausage if one closely observes how either is made,” I enjoy remaining ignorant (Mosser, 2013). I enjoy not knowing the ins and outs of our meat industry because I enjoy eating various mass-produced animals. However, there are many animals I refuse to eat and believe they deserve some moral consideration, such as dogs, cats, dolphins, chimpanzees, horses, and bonobos. I also have a very hard time eating veal (deer) due to the fact that it is a baby animal.   With humans, I believe that there are certainly times where moral consideration should not include every human, such as cases of abortion or humans in a vegetable state. If there is any brain function in an infant, child, or adult, I don’t believe killing them for no reason is a viable option. Now, Singer would certainly argue that this outlook on human life is speciesism, “which ignores the interests (and suffering) of other species” to promote the well-being of another species, like your own (Mosser, 2013). I agree that my desire to keep the human species alive at the costs of other species is certainly a relevant argument, however, I also agree that a utilitarian standpoint should be considered, and while we kill hundreds of thousands of animals on a regular basis, there is more food being put on multiple tables, and therefore, more hungry people are eating than animals being killed. At least in theory. There is always the possibility the sacrificed animals are wasted; kids end up throwing their food away because they don’t want to eat it, leftovers are discarded, etc.     Mosser, K. (2013). Understanding philosophy. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.     Singer, P. (1989). All animals are equal. In T. Regan & P. Singer (Eds.), Animal rights and human obligations (pp. 148-162). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Retrieved from http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/phil1200,Spr07/singer.pdf

• • Go To Topic

TREATMENT OF ANIMALS QUESTION 1

Singer argues that there is no moral justification for denying moral consideration to animals. Can you think of a reason why our moral consideration should include all humans regardless of their level of cognitive ability, yet denied to non-human animals simply because they have lower levels of cognitive abilities (though still higher in some cases than those of human infants and some mentally disabled humans)? What response might he have to your way of drawing the line between the types of beings that should get moral consideration and those that should not? 

I have a hard time with this particular discussion post. On one hand, I eat meat on a regular basis, and as Otto von Bismarck once said that “one cannot enjoy politics or sausage if one closely observes how either is made,” I enjoy remaining ignorant (Mosser, 2013). I enjoy not knowing the ins and outs of our meat industry because I enjoy eating various mass-produced animals. However, there are many animals I refuse to eat and believe they deserve some moral consideration, such as dogs, cats, dolphins, chimpanzees, horses, and bonobos. I also have a very hard time eating veal (deer) due to the fact that it is a baby animal.  

·         With humans, I believe that there are certainly times where moral consideration should not include every human, such as cases of abortion or humans in a vegetable state. If there is any brain function in an infant, child, or adult, I don’t believe killing them for no reason is a viable option. Now, Singer would certainly argue that this outlook on human life is speciesism, “which ignores the interests (and suffering) of other species” to promote the well-being of another species, like your own (Mosser, 2013). I agree that my desire to keep the human species alive at the costs of other species is certainly a relevant argument, however, I also agree that a utilitarian standpoint should be considered, and while we kill hundreds of thousands of animals on a regular basis, there is more food being put on multiple tables, and therefore, more hungry people are eating than animals being killed. At least in theory. There is always the possibility the sacrificed animals are wasted; kids end up throwing their food away because they don’t want to eat it, leftovers are discarded, etc. 

Mosser, K. (2013). Understanding philosophy. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc. 

Singer, P. (1989). All animals are equal (Links to an external site.). In T. Regan & P. Singer (Eds.), Animal rights and human obligations (pp. 148-162). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Retrieved from http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/phil1200,Spr07/singer.pdf (Links to an external site.)

·         FeliciaMonic Yelladay

Option #2 The basic principle of equality:  According to Singer, the basic principle of equality is the equality of equal consideration. Everyone should have equal consideration of interest no matter their race, color, or gender, not to imply that all should be treated exactly the same way, just have the same consideration of interest. Singer believes that all sentient beings (those with the capacity to experience pleasure and pain) are entitled to equal consideration. As non-human animals are considered sentient, then there is no moral justification for refusing to take their pain and pleasure into account (Faculty of Arts).   I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. I don't particularly care for cruelty to animals but I also don't or at least try not to, judge a culture that has things like bull fighting and the like. I eat meat, lots of proteins, I was raised to think that that was what most animals was for, at the same time I have pets. I also think that if there is a better way to test things for human use like medication then great if not, than what can we do? I think that making and raising some animals just for that purpose is a little better than hunting and taking then out of the wild. I believe all animals, human and non-human alike can feel pain and pleasure and should have equal consideration, just not sure how feasible it is.   Singer's "All Animals are Equal" - Faculty of Arts  faculty.arts.ubc.ca/pfindler/singer.htm

• • Go To Topic

Option #2 The basic principle of equality: 

According to Singer, the basic principle of equality is the equality of equal consideration. Everyone should have equal consideration of interest no matter their race, color, or gender, not to imply that all should be treated exactly the same way, just have the same consideration of interest. Singer believes that all sentient beings (those with the capacity to experience pleasure and pain) are entitled to equal consideration. As non-human animals are considered sentient, then there is no moral justification for refusing to take their pain and pleasure into account (Faculty of Arts).  

I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. I don't particularly care for cruelty to animals but I also don't or at least try not to, judge a culture that has things like bull fighting and the like. I eat meat, lots of proteins, I was raised to think that that was what most animals was for, at the same time I have pets. I also think that if there is a better way to test things for human use like medication then great if not, than what can we do? I think that making and raising some animals just for that purpose is a little better than hunting and taking then out of the wild. I believe all animals, human and non-human alike can feel pain and pleasure and should have equal consideration, just not sure how feasible it is.

Singer's "All Animals are Equal" - Faculty of Arts (Links to an external site.) 

faculty.arts.ubc.ca/pfindler/singer.htm

·         Tatiana Ward

6. Tom Regan says that we all have equal inherent value by virtue of being ‘experiencing subjects of a life’. What does it mean to be an ‘experiencing subject of a life’? Do you think that being the subject of a life means that one has equal inherent value? Does it follow from that view that animals should be given rights to life and freedom?  Experiencing subject of a life reads to me as a person who is going through each experience, life itself is an experience that is different for each. According to Tom Regan (1985), "…. experiencing subjects of a life, a conscious creature having an individual welfare that has importance to us whatever our usefulness to others" (p. 6). I believe each human has equal inherent value, now being compared to an animal is on a different level. I do not feel animals should be given the same rights to life and freedom as humans. We are different creatures with different functions in life. I do not agree to animals being oppressed, but the concern for an animal is not of the importance to me when humans are not even treating humans respectfully. To give animals those rights when we fail to provide our humanity that, would be a complete fail.   References  Regan, T. (1985). The case for animal rights (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.. In P. Singer (Ed.), In defense of animals (pp. 13-26). New York, NY: Basil Blackwell. Retrieved from http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/regan03.htm

• • Go To Topic

6.      6. Tom Regan says that we all have equal inherent value by virtue of being ‘experiencing subjects of a life’. What does it mean to be an ‘experiencing subject of a life’? Do you think that being the subject of a life means that one has equal inherent value? Does it follow from that view that animals should be given rights to life and freedom? 

Experiencing subject of a life reads to me as a person who is going through each experience, life itself is an experience that is different for each. According to Tom Regan (1985), "…. experiencing subjects of a life, a conscious creature having an individual welfare that has importance to us whatever our usefulness to others" (p. 6). I believe each human has equal inherent value, now being compared to an animal is on a different level. I do not feel animals should be given the same rights to life and freedom as humans. We are different creatures with different functions in life. I do not agree to animals being oppressed, but the concern for an animal is not of the importance to me when humans are not even treating humans respectfully. To give animals those rights when we fail to provide our humanity that, would be a complete fail.  

References 

Regan, T. (1985). The case for animal rights (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (Links to an external site.). In P. Singer (Ed.), In defense of animals (pp. 13-26). New York, NY: Basil Blackwell. Retrieved from http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/regan03.htm

NO WORD COUNT