Lecture 5

1. Early anthropocentrism:
• Genesis
• St Thomas Aquinas

2. Anthropocentrism as property rights:
• John Locke
• Garrett Hardin

3. Extensionism:

Singer, “All Animals are Equal” (tonight)
Regan, “The Case for Animal Rights” (Oct. 17)
Taylor, “The Ethics of Respect for Nature” (Oct. 24)


This lecture:

• Singer’s Philosophy of Animal Liberation

1. Background and context
2. Utilitarianism as our first “ethical theory”
3. Singer’s utilitarian argument

Sentience:
“The condition of being conscious, self-aware, or able to experience pleasure and pain”
• The condition of being self-aware
• The condition of being “conscious”
• The ability to experience pleasure and pain

Ethical theory:
• “A framework that helps to clarify, systematize, or unify similar types of moral claims”

Ethical theories occupy the deepest level:

• Judgment
• Rule
• Principle
• Ethical theory

Singer’s argument(s)

• The general approach: extensionism
• The “underlying” ethical theory: utilitarianism

• Singer's position is built on 2 arguments:

1. The intuitive argument (…against speciesism)
2. The utilitarian argument


1. The intuitive argument

A. The concept of speciesism
Our society-wide approach to the ethical treatment of animals involves a deep and harmful prejudice, based on a anthropocentric ways of thinking

Speciesism = “A prejudice benefiting of the interests of one’s own species, at the expense of others”
Think about livestock rearing, rodeos, circus animals

B. Analogy with racism & sexism
• Racists and sexists give greater weight to the interests of their own race/sex, over those of others
• We agree, as a society, that such ways of thinking are wrong and should be eliminated

• Most people living in our society have adopted anti-racist/anti-sexist attitudes
• Most accept that human beings have the universal right to be treated as equals
• We put our faith in government to reduce inequality (for instance, inequalities in getting a job due to unfair prejudice or bias)


2. The utilitarian argument

We need to take two steps:
A. Utilitarianism as an ethical theory
B. Singer’s distinctive form of utilitarianism, as he applies it to animal liberation

A. 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


Three moral building blocks of utilitarianism:

1. Consequences
2. Happiness
3. 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?


1. Singer’s distinctive form of utilitarianism:

Three building blocks:
1. Consequences [largely unchanged]
2. Happiness [needs to be modified]
3. Moral equality [needs to be modified]

Happiness
A shift away from typical utilitarianism
Not maximizing happiness
Rather, 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

In a way, Singer simply shifts the burden of proof
Instead of asking why animals deserve better treatment, Singer asks how do we justify the harms and suffering we cause

There are many differences between our species and others
But there are also similarities that are relevant from a moral point of view
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?