Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Humans vs. Animals
Transcript of Humans vs. Animals
Morality Rights Theory
Tom Regan "Lack the prerequisites that would enable them to control their own behavior in ways that would make them morally accountable for what they do. (Regan, 19) Moral Patient Feminist Animal Care Theory
Josephine Donovan Utilitarian Thoery
Peter Singer Criticisms Not universalizable
No specific guide for
action "Tends to view individuals as autonomous
isolates, thereby neglecting their social relationships." (Donovan, 48) Ignores sympathy, empathy and compassion Universal Grammar Implications Capacity for suffering allows for the capactiy of interests
Interests are more valid than rights because utility concerns
they best interest for all "If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification
for refusing to take that suffering into consideration."
(Singer, 37) Implications Criticisms "The principal of equal consideration of interests does not
allow major interests to be sacrificed for minor interests."
(Singer, 39) Implications Criticisms Speciesism Eating animals
Experimenting on animals
Zoos and Circuses
(Singer, 41) Allows more flexibility for actions. Actions may not realize
every beings' needs, but they must consider them. Emotions create bias
for certain animals. Ethic of Care
Ethic of Justice Moral Agent Miniride Principle "When we must choose between
overriding the rights of many who
are innocent or the rights of few who
are innocent... we ought to choose to override
the rights of few."
Assumes overriding of each individual is comperable.
(Regan, 24) Miniride Principle
Moral Patients vs. Moral Agents
Subject-of-a-life Citerion Subject-of-a-Life Criterion Worse-off Principle "When we must decide to override the rights of many or the rights of few who are innocent, and when the harm faced by the few would make them worse-off than anyof the many would be if any other option were chosen, then we ought to override the rights of the many." (Regan, 25) Beings that have the following posess inherent value:
perception, memory, sense of future
pleasure and pain
ability to pursue interests Beings that can determine moral principles, and freely choose to act according to them. Requires only that the interests of all beings that are affected be taken into equal consideration. Inherent value is different than value of experiences, therefore morality cannot be determined solely by considering desires.
Cup Analogy- what goes into the cup (experiences, pleasures) has value. The cup itself (the agent) has a different ind of value that cannot be compared.
The utilitarian view argues that all that should be considered for moral justice is what goes into the cup, which is wrong.
Since the cup (or the agents) have value, it must also be considered when determining moral justice.
(Regan 21) Resources: Donovan, Josephine, and Carol J. Adams. The Feminist Care Tradition in
Animal Ethics. New York (N.Y.): Columbia UP, 2007. Print.
Armstrong, Susan J., and Richard George Botzler. The Animal Ethics
Reader. London: Routledge, 2008. Print. Ethic of Care Ethic of Justice Criticisms
assumes all beings are equal Supports
animal ethics must have a rationale-based consistency Criticisms
emotions create bias Support
emotions are curcial to human-animal relationships Universal Grammar Humans must learn the dialect of animals to fully understand our surroundings.
(Donovan, 50) Trey DelGreco Assigning fewer rights to animals because they are a different species. DelGreco's View Utility is a major concern when determining morality.
I relate closest to this theory, but I do believe it is too extreme. For example, I do not give much consideration to the interests of a cockroach before I kill it. That would be absurd. Thoughts about Singer Thoughts about Reagan Too calculated
I would never go through each principle to make sure that my action holds morality. It would take too long
I also think that social relationships play a large role in the morality of decisions. This is the best criticism or his view. Thoughts on Donovan Her view presents many good arguments
specifically that emotions create bias and it does treat all agents equal
However, it does not offer any significant moral advice. And I agree that it is not universalizable. Which View Wins? Singer comes closests, but it still not my idea of accurate.
I determine morality based on a combination of utility, social relationship, and convenience.