Philosophy- The question of why? The Enlightenment Philosophy- The question of why?

TNT    René Descartes is perhaps the single most important thinker of the European Enlightenment. At an age most people graduate from college nowadays, he quietly and methodically went about tearing down all previous forms of knowledge and certainty and replaced them with a single, echoing truth: Cogito, ergo sum , "I think, therefore I am." From that point onwards in European culture, subjective (what you think) truth would hold a higher and more important place than objective (what they think) truth, skepticism (doubt) would be built into every question, investigation would hold a higher place than accepting the way things are, and the mind would be separated from the body RENE DESCARTES (1595-1650) "I am thinking therefore I exist." (Latin: Cogito ergo sum)

So now lets do some thinking! What is the definition of truth? What is right and wrong? What is good and what is evil? What is the definition of thinking?

Ethics Applied ethics involves examining specific controversial issues, such as abortion, infanticide, animal rights, environmental concerns, homosexuality, capital punishment, or nuclear war. In 1982 a couple from Bloomington, Indiana gave birth to a severely retarded baby. The infant, known as Baby Doe, also had its stomach disconnected from its throat and was thus unable to receive nourishment. Although this stomach deformity was correctable through surgery, the couple did not want to raise a severely retarded child and therefore chose to deny surgery, food, and water for the infant. Local courts supported the parents' decision, and six days later Baby Doe died. Should corrective surgery have been performed for Baby Doe?

Argument 1 1. Animal welfare We are stewards (carers) of animals. Their lives and experiences have value, but it is up to us to decide how to maximize the total value by using animals in various ways. Associated attitudes Various traditional uses of animals are permitted, as long as they serve non-trivial ends and are conducted in ways that eliminate unnecessary animal suffering. For example: medical research humane animal slaughter for food products hunting, at least to prevent wildlife overpopulation Typical underlying philosophical basis We have a moral obligation to balance benefits and harms. If an animal can suffer pain, then we have an obligation to balance this harm against the benefits of any human use of the animal. So we should to use animals when the benefits to us outweigh the costs to them, but in doing so, we should eliminate unnecessary animal suffering.

Argument 2 TNT 2. Human dominion We have dominion over animals. That is, they have value only as means to our ends. Associated attitudes Everything under animal welfare is allowed, plus things like: cockfighting, circuses, rodeos, and bullfights confined exotic animal hunting injuring animals for movies Typical underlying philosophical basis Animals have no moral standing, because they lack consciousness (ability to think), including consciousness of pain. So it doesn't matter, morally speaking, how we treat them; no treatment of animals can be judged immoral except if it causes humans pain by doing it. For example hurting someone else's pet

Argument 3 TNT 3. Animal rights Animals have moral rights. And when individuals have moral rights, we cannot treat them as means to our ends. Associated attitudes Many or most traditional uses of animals are opposed, including everything listed as allowed under either of the above views, plus such things as: consuming animal byproducts (like milk and eggs) captive breeding programs for endangered species keeping pets Typical underlying philosophical basis If you have rights, then we cannot justify harming you just because the benefits to us outweigh the harms to you. Some non-human animals have mental lives similar to those of some humans (dogs have the same IQ as very small children). So if we recognize rights for all humans (including very small children) then we should recognize rights for those animals. And so, for those animals, we cannot justify harming them just because the benefits to us outweigh the harms to them.

Questions: For those in the animal welfare and animal rights camps: Which animals do you think are conscious and why? For instance, are sponges and barnacles conscious (these are both in the animal kingdom)? What about mosquitoes and cockroaches? What is the moral status of non-human animals? For those in the human dominion camp: What is the scientific basis for denying that animals are conscious? And if you believe that (at least some) animals are conscious, but you believe we may do with them as we wish, what is the moral justification for ignoring any suffering we cause them?

Is this dog really sad? Or do we just think so because we would be sad if we were in a cage? Is this dog really happy? Or do we think so because it looks like its smiling and that’s what we do when were happy?

Homework Read Section 3 “The American Revolution” Pg 464-468 Do Vocabulary Words and Main Idea 1 and 2