1. Kat Angelini & Miranda Chapman
Obligation to animals
Kat Angelini & Miranda Chapman

2. Peter Singer’s Beliefs
Speciesism – the assumption of human superiority leading to the exploitation of animals.
Just as it was morally wrong to deny equal moral standing based on race or sex, it is equally wrong to the same based on species
Can they suffer?
Key question used to used whether something qualifies for equal moral standing
Rock
Suffering = Interests
Since the 1970s Peter Singer has closely related our treatment of animals with the way that we excluded blacks and women. He uses the term speciesism to connect with racism and sexism and states that just as it was morally wrong to deny equal moral standings based on race or sex, it is just as wrong to deny those moral standings based on species. The main question Singer looks to answer when talking about our obligation to animals is can they suffer. If something can suffer they in turn have interests and therefore deserve a moral standing. In the article they use the example of a stone. If a boy were to kick a stone while walking along the sidewalk, the stone does not have interests because it did not suffer, and nothing we could do could make a difference to its welfare. But if this rock were to be a mouse it would then have interests in not being kicked because it would suffer.

3. Singer cont…
Sentience – the capacity to suffer and/or experience enjoyment
Necessary for something to have interests!
Required to treat all sentient begins with equal moral consideration
Do not need to treat all sentient beings equally
Slapping a horse vs a baby
Utilitarian approach
Provides an account of intrinsic good (enjoyment and minimal suffering) and says that it is our ethical responsibility to minimize the overall suffering.
Sentience is a term that Singer uses when referring to the capacity of suffering or experiencing enjoyment. Sentience is something that is necessary to have in order to have interests. So going back to the rock example, the rock does not have sentience, but the mouse does. Because sentient beings have interests they also have a moral standing. This means we are required to treat all sentient beings with equal moral consideration, BUT it does not mean we cannot make a distinction between animals and humans. Humans and animals have different interests and are affected by things in different ways. If we were to slap a horse they would have little to no reaction compared to slapping a baby who would end up crying. This leads Singer to saying that specific beings with sophisticated mental capabilities and a capacity for different emotional states have a greater range of interests, and therefore a different moral standing. Making these comparisons can then be difficult, especially between different species. With all of this, Singer’s approach is that of a utilitarian, due to the fact that he provides an account of intrinsic good and says that it is our ethical responsibility to minimize the overall suffering of animals.

4. Tom Regan’s Beliefs Rights based defense
Ways we treat animals are wrong in principle, but not because of the suffering and pain caused
Violate animals rights
Inherent values – having values dependent of the interests, needs, or uses of anyone else
Ends in themselves not means to some other end
While Peter Singer fought the moral standing of animals from a utilitarian standpoint, Tom Regan’s beliefs are more rights based. Along the lines of Singer, Regan criticizes a wide variety of activites that affect animals. Some of these include scientific research, using animals as food, and recreational use of animals. Regan believes that these different activites are wrong in principle, but not because of the pain and suffering we are causing to those animals. Regan compares this to why it would be wrong to subject humans to similar treatment. In his example he has the readers imagine us treating disadvantaged children as food. Although the kids would be raised in a manner that they would not be suffering, we still find it morally wrong to kill them even if the overall enjoyment outweighed the suffering. Regan then has us look at inherent value. In order for someone to have inherent value they must have values independent of the interests, needs, or uses of anyone else. Objects with inherent value are ends in themselves and not means to some other end. Therefore Regan believes it is wrong to treat humans, and some animals, as means to some other ends.

5. Regan’s Beliefs cont…
So far Regan’s beliefs seem very similar to Kant’s beliefs
Moral agents vs patients
Agents – able to makes decisions for themselves and can be held accountable
Patients – cannot be held accountable to what they do or do not do
Argues that moral patients are subject-of-a-life
Having a life rather than merely being alive
Concludes that we must treat individuals with inherent value as equals
Animals can be subject-of-a-life and deserve respect
In order to differentiate these beliefs from Kant’s, who we will talk about in a bit, Regan has us look at moral agents vs moral patients. Moral agents are free and rational and are able to make decisions for themselves and be held accountable for those decisions. Moral patients cannot be held accountable for what they do or do not do. Moral patients cannot act morally, but they can be acted upon morally or immorally. So why is it wrong to treat other patients as food or targets? Regan says that moral patients are subject-of-a-life. Meaning they have a life opposed to just being alive. Being the subject-of-a-life includes many characterisitcs. Some of these include having beliefs and desires, have an emotional life together with feelings of pleasure and pain, and having preference and welfare-interests. These are just some of the characteristics for one to be subject-of-a-life. Finally, Regan concludes that we must treat individuals with inherent value as equals. He believes that some animals can be subjects-of-a-life and therefore deserve to be treated with respect.

6. Environmentalist Issues
Responsibility as a society to end commercial farming
Sporting hunting and trapping are unjust
Use of animals in science and research
Neither support moral standings for species as whole
While both Singer and Regan have addressed a wide variety of issues. Environmentalists have focused on four main topics. First both Singer and Regan would argue that as a society it is our responsibility to end commercial farming. Nothing that could be used to defend commercial farming can justify treating animals as food. Second both would agree that sport hunting and trapping are unjust. These practices are mora than cruel and are serious injustice. Along the lines of these using animals for any form of entertainment is wrong. This includes things like zoos and rodeos. A third issue that both Singer and Regan agree on is the use of animals in science and research. This is something that is harsh to animals and would never be done to humans. Finally Regan and Singer do not support moral standing for species. Regan’s views protects individual animals from harm, but does not recognize species and Singer along the same lines says individual animals can suffer from pain but species can not.

7. Problems with Singer and Regan’s Beliefs
Measurement problems – suffering
Omitting too many animals
Individualistic
Two major problems with these two philosophers beliefs on our obligation to animals are measurement and individualization. First with Singer’s views there is no way that we can measure how much suffering an animal is going through. And finally with regan’s view omits too many animals. He believes that only certain animals can have a moral standing and have rights.

8. Kant

9. CST

10. A grey area? You are the duty track vet at Blankshire Greyhound Track for their Saturday evening meeting. As the leading greyhounds round the fourth and last bend into the home straight in the last race of the night, it is clear that the back-marker, a fawn bitch in the orange jacket denoting a start from Trap 5, is falling further and further behind her rivals although struggling gamely in their wake. When finally caught by the handler at the pick-up she is no longer bearing any weight on her right hind leg. Clinical examination in the vets’ room reveals gross swelling of the anterior aspect of the right tarsus with crepitus and pain evident on even the gentlest palpation. You diagnose a likely central tarsal bone fracture. The bitch in question is four years old and was a recent purchase by the present owner, who also trains her, having been based until lately at a rather better track where she had won a couple of races in A5 Grade.
According to these different standings is this moral?
Case Study

11. Connection to Global Warming