The utilitarian argument
We need to two steps:
Utilitarianism as an ethical theory
Singer’s distinctive form of utilitarianism, as he applies it to animal liberation
Utilitarianism as an ethical theory
Founders:
Jeremy Bentham (1832)
John Stuart Mill (1873)
The basic argument:
J.S. Mill's basic argument for utilitarianism
The story of Mathew Donnelly
Examples:
Canadian Blood Services
Harry Truman and the atom bomb
Three moral building blocks of utilitarianism:
Consequences
Happiness
Moral equality
Basic principles of utilitarianism:
Bentham's dictum:
“Seek the greatest good for the greatest number”
The ‘standard’ utilitarian principle:
“Act so as to bring about greatest amount of happiness and least amount of suffering possible”
Weaknesses of Utilitarianism:
Are consequences all that matter?
What about personal responsibility?
What about rights and duties?
Is happiness all that matters?
Narrow pursuit of happiness is called “hedonism”
Some values and some human emotions can’t always be “cashed out” or translated into happiness
Is moral equality too strict?
What about relationships of family, friendship, and patriotism?
Singer’s distinctive form of utilitarianism:
Three building blocks:
Consequences [unchanged]
Happiness [needs to be modified]
Moral equality [needs to be modified]
Happiness
A shift away from prototypical utilitarianism
Not maximizing happiness per se
Rather, Singer is concerned about preventing suffering
Any animal capable of experiencing pain and suffering deserves “moral standing”
Moral equality
A shift away from typical utilitarianism
Equal concern for every animals with moral standing
Our duty is to show equal concern for suffering, whether it occurs in a human being or a non-human animal
There are many differences between our species and others
But there are also similarities:
What’s important is the capacity for suffering
Those animals that can experience pain have interests that should be taken into account
Singer thinks there is not a significant difference between the interests of humans and the interests of animals—at least when we are talking about pain and deprivation
Singer’s position:
“All sentient animals have moral standing”
We have (direct) duties to at least some non-human animals
We have no justification to make these animals suffer as we currently do in settings of factory farming, animal experimentation, rodeos, bullfights, circuses, and so forth
Questioning Singer’s philosophy
1. This philosophy of “animal liberation” is not very radical
Moral standing is still an “exclusive” club (this time it’s a club for “sentients”)
Why not all animals? Why not all living things?
“Humane hunting”?
“Friendly” rearing and slaughtering methods?
2. Singer’s analogy is bi-directional
Hydrocephalic newborns might sometimes be considered “less sentient” than dogs and livestock
Should they be treated less humanely?
3. Utilitarian measurement problems
Singer’s theory appears efficient and straightforward
But, can we actually compare suffering and pleasure between people, or between species?
4. The criticisms of utilitarianism work directly against Singer
Singer’s argument is tied into the utilitarian theory…
Are consequences all that matter?
Is happiness all that matters?
Is moral equality too strict?
Regan, Kant and Animal Rights
Three points to remember:
What is Regan’s argument for animal rights?
What is ‘Kantian’or ‘rights-based’ ethics?
Does Regan’s use of Kantian ethics successfully justify animal rights?
Regan’s argument for animal rights
Radical objectives:
- Elimination of scientific experimentation
- Elimination of animal agriculture
- Elimination of sport hunting
The philosophical dilemma:
Find an alternative to Singer’s utilitarianism
To find a theory of ethics that makes better sense of ‘rights’
Different species of rights:
Legal rights:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Rights found in the Criminal Code of Canada
Moral rights
“Values that give appropriate respect to the dignity and equal worth of each person”
The right of self-determination
It’s not right to deceive your friends
Universal human rights
Special rights found in the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Rights that protect against genocide, slavery, torture, ethnic cleansing
The basic thrust is virtually the same:
Certain human interests are so important that they should be respected for everyone no matter what it costs
Rights should trump the overall social good
Justification
Utilitarianism is justified by the three building blocks
How are rights justified?
“Justification” means “showing adequate grounds for reasonable people to believe your assertion and guide their actions accordingly”
Common justifications of ‘rights’:
Kant and the “categorical imperative” (1797)
Legal positivism (19th – 20th centuries)
The social contract (18th century – present)
Human dignity (present)
The strategy is to modify Kant’s ethics, which are rooted in ideas of “human rights”, “respect”, and “human dignity” (instead of maximizing social utility)
Kantian ethics
a.k.a…
deontological ethics
duty-based ethics
rights-based ethics
Examples:
Your friend is telling hurtful stories about you behind your back
Harry Truman and the atom bomb
Kant’s argument:
“We are ethical beings because we are rational beings who can freely form intentions and deliberately choose to act on them”
Rationality
Freedom
Intention
Deliberation -> action
Ethics is exclusively about human reason and the capacity for free choice
The “will” that controls all human action
Obviously, this capacity is uniquely human
Human beings are “moral legislators”
Only moral legislators can understand and act freely on rules of morality
Only moral legislators have rights and duties
Animals are not moral legislators
Therefore, there are no duties directly to them
Kant and the categorical imperative:
Kant argues:
“We are ethical beings because we are rational beings who can freely form intentions and deliberately choose to act on them”
Hypothetical imperatives:
“If you want to want to become a skilled guitar player, you should: _____________”
“If you want to get good grades in school, you should: __________________ ”
Categorical imperatives:
“You should always act according to a maxim that you can view as a universal law"
“You should always act in a way that treats human beings as ends in themselves, not merely as a means”
Ends and means:
An “end-in-itself” – is a thing worthy of special respect and treatment—not to be used as merely someone’s object
A “means to an end” – is a thing that can legitimately be used to fulfill another’s purposes
Regan puts forth two arguments:
The first attacks Singer’s utilitarian position
The second is Regan’s own “Kantian” argument
However, he encounters difficulties right away…
Kant’s ethical theory is complex and controversial
Kant is against direct obligations to non-human animals
“Our duties towards animals are indirect duties towards mankind”
“Animals are not self-conscious and [they] are there merely as a means to an end. That end is man.”
This mirrors the type of “indirect duty” we’ve seen before:
Orwell: Only if the animal is someone’s property, being cruel violates property rights
Aquinas: Cruelty to non-human animals disrespects the spirit of God
Aquinas/Kant: Cruelty damages in a person the feelings of fellowship and humanity which it is our duty to extend to the rest of humankind
Kant adds that human appreciation for the ‘sociability’ of non-human animals also increases feelings of humanity
Why should non-human animals be given rights when even the philosopher Regan most relies on (Kant) rejects the idea?
Part 1. The criticism of Singer
The story of Aunt Bea
Respect for the rights of individuals
Part 2. Regan’s Kantian animal rights argument
Two concepts:
“Subject-of-a-life”:
To be the subject of a life involves more than merely being alive and more than merely feeling pleasure and pain…. It involves having beliefs and desires, perception, memory, a sense of the future, an emotional life and emotional ties to other creatures, a sense of the creature’s well-being and how to promote it, an psychological (psychophysical) identity over time
“Inherent value”:
The equal right of every subject-of-a-life to be treated with respect, and to be treated in ways that do not reduce it to the status of a thing
The argument:
According to Regan, every animal that counts as a subject-of-a-life should be regarded as having inherent value
Things with inherent value should be equally entitled to moral standing
As moral agents, humans have a direct obligation to not:
i) intentionally harm a subject-of-a-life
ii) intentionally use them as resources
Therefore, use of non-human animals in science, agriculture, cuisine, sport hunting, rodeos, zoos, and so on, is deeply wrong and should be eliminated
Three problems with Regan’s argument
Is this position so radical that it’s impossible to live up to? Is it, as Regan suggests, always wrong to use animals as resources?
In reality, could “animal rights” be enforced in the natural world? What about predator/prey relationships? Should we take steps to protect the rights of subjects-of-a-life throughout nature the same way we do in our ‘human society’?
More generally, what about holistic entities like a species or ecosystem? Do they also have rights? When the interests of holistic entities conflict with rights of individuals, whose interests should prevail?
Fifteen-minute essay
Take out a piece of lined paper
Write roughly ¾ of a page in essay form
Begin with one clear proposition
Add two or three clear propositions to explain and/or support it
Question:
Select either Singer’s or Regan’s argument, and explain in your own words whether or not it is anthropocentric.
TRUMAN'S HIROSHIMA SPEECH
August 6, 1945
The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. We have won the war of discovery against the Germans. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans. We shall continue to use it until we completely destroy Japan’s power to make war.
Four propositions
1. The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base.
factual claim.
2. We have won the war of discovery against the Germans.
discovery?
3. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans.
the agony of war: a utilitarian argument
4. We shall continue to use it until we completely destroy Japan’s power to make war.
demand for unconditional surrender
