1. Lecture 09: A Brief Summary

2. Kant’s view on animals is ‘anthropocentric’ in that it is based on a sharp distinction between humans and non-human animals. According to Kant, only humans have intrinsic value. Animals, in his view, have no intrinsic value and exist as mere objects for use by humans.

3. The main propositions of Kant’s ‘indirect duty’ view:
Unlike humans, animals are not rational, autonomous or self-conscious.
Animals are not moral agents. They cannot make moral judgments. They have no understanding of duty. Nor can they be held responsible for their actions.

4. As such, animals are not members of the moral community.
Humans do not have moral duties to animals. Humans only have duties to other members of the moral community (i.e. humans).

5. Cruelty to animals, however, is unacceptable because mistreatment of animals may lead to mistreatment of humans (i.e. cruel treatment of animals can have damaging effects on a person’s character).
Thus, we have to be kind to animals because we have ‘indirect duties’ to other humans.

6. Peter Singer is a utilitarian thinker who opposes speciesism
Peter Singer is a utilitarian thinker who opposes speciesism. In Singer’s view, animals are capable of pleasure and suffering and, as such, are morally considerable in the same way that humans are morally considerable.

7. The main propositions of Singer’s principle of ‘equal consideration of interests’:
Speciesism, like racism and sexism, is a form of discrimination.
All sentient beings, humans and animals alike, are equally morally considerable.

8. The similar interests of different sentient beings should be given equal weight in our moral deliberations.
Moral consideration has nothing to do with individual differences in capacities (i.e. despite these differences, we should give equal consideration to the similar interests of all sentient beings).

9. Equality is not a descriptive fact, but a prescriptive ideal of how others should be treated.
‘Equal consideration of interests’ does not necessarily imply identical treatment because different sentient beings may have different needs and interests.

10. Tom Regan is a deontological rights theorist who argues that humans and non-human animals should have equal rights because of their equal inherent value.

11. The main propositions of Regan’s ‘strong animal rights position’:
Animals, like humans, are the subjects of their own lives and the subjects of their own experiences.
Animals, like humans, exist for themselves; they do not exist for anyone else.

12. Animals, like humans, are ‘subjects-of- a-life’
Animals, like humans, are ‘subjects-of- a-life’. As such, they have inherent value just as we humans do.
Inherent value does not come in degrees.
Thus, animals should be accorded equal rights as humans (for protection of their inherent value).

13. The current system (economic, social, legal, political, etc
The current system (economic, social, legal, political, etc.) is based on the false assumption that animals exist as ‘resources’ (mere objects) for use by humans.
Factory farming and animal research should be abolished because these practices involve violations of animal rights.

14. In recent decades, mechanized methods of production have been applied to livestock farming in order to mass produce meat for human consumption. As a result, the well- being of factory-farmed animals are systematically sacrificed in every way to reduce expenditures and thereby maximize profits.

15. While some instances of animal experimentation promise great benefits to humans (and other animals), many instances of animal research do not produce benefits that outweigh the harms they inflict. Apart from that, the results of some of these experiments cannot be reliably extrapolated to cases involving humans.

16. From Singer’s utilitarian point of view, factory farming and animal experimentation cannot be morally justified if the pain and suffering caused to the animals outweighs the benefits to humans.

17. On the other hand, according to Tom Regan’s ‘strong animal rights position’, to defend animal rights is to claim that certain ways of treating animals can never be morally justified on utilitarian grounds.

18. In Regan’s view, factory farming and animal research should be abolished because such practices violate animal rights by treating animals as mere means (resources) rather than as subjects-of-a-life.

19. One of the necessary skills you need to develop in the study of ethics is the ability to evaluate other people’s arguments and to construct reasoned arguments of your own.

20. Consider the following argument:
[P1] The more morally relevant properties a being possesses, the higher the being’s moral status.
[P2] Some animals (e.g. chimpanzees) have more morally relevant properties than some humans (e.g. human infants).
[C] Thus, some animals have higher moral status than some humans.

21. Based on the above, it can be further argued that:
[P1] Some animals have higher moral status than some humans.
[P2] The higher a being’s moral status, the more rights the being possesses.
[C] Some animals should have more rights than some humans.

22. Consider another argument:
[P1] Unequal treatment is not justified unless some relevant difference exists.
[P2] Farm animals (e.g. pigs and cows) have similar capacities as house pets (e.g. cats and dogs).
[C] Thus, farm animals and house pets should be treated equally.

23. Based on the above, it can be further argued that:
[P1] Farm animals and house pets should be treated equally.
[P2] House pets are protected by anti- cruelty laws.
[C] Farm animals should also be protected by anti-cruelty laws.

24. Consider yet another argument:
[P1] Some animals are being used as a source of food for humans.
[P2] These animals would not have existed if humans did not eat them.
[C] Thus, some animals do not exist for any purposes of their own. They exist only as a means to human ends.

25. However, the same can also be said of human infants:
[P1] Human infants can be used as a source of food.
[P2] These infants would not have existed if no one wanted to eat them.
[C] Thus, some infants only exist as a mere means to someone else’s ends.

26. The ‘argument from marginal cases’:
[P1] If we are allowed to use animals as a source of food, we are also allowed to use human infants as a source of food.
[P2] It is morally impermissible to use human infants as a source of food.
[C] Thus, it is also unacceptable for us to use animals as a source of food.

27. Do you think the above arguments are good arguments? Why or why not?