Speciesism

Question 1

How does Singer define speciesism?

Answer 1

a prejudice in favour of the interests of members of one species against those members of other species

Question 2

Singer’s argument Standard Form

Answer 2

1. Humans have moral value
2. There is no feature held by all humans to greater degree than non-humans
3. If there is no feature held by all humans to greater degree than non-humans then species is a morally arbitrary attribute
4. ## If species is a morally arbitrary attribute we need to extend the same basic moral principle (PEC) to members of all speciesC: we need it extend moral value to non-human animals

Question 3

What is the PEC

Answer 3

Principle of equal consideration of interests

Question 4

What are the marginal cases?

Answer 4

• babies
• cognitive impairments
• dementia ect

Question 5

What are the 3 flaws Kagan presents in Singer’s argument?

Answer 5

1. speciesism is not a prejudice
2. pain duration and intensity are not the only morally relevant features
3. sentientism vs speciesism and intuition

Question 6

What is the case used by Kagan to explain that intensity and duration are not the only morally relevant feature of pain?

Answer 6

The criminal and the falsely accused

Question 7

sentientism vs speciesism

Answer 7

1. Singer draws a line between sentient and non sentient
   - based on intuition
2. the speciesist draws a line between human and non-human
   - based on intuition

singer uses intuition for 1 but says it is prejudiced to do so in 2

Question 8

What is Kagan’s definition of prejudice?

What argument stems from this

Answer 8

a prejudice is something based on evidence that one would not normally find adequate

the division between species is based on intuition - speciesism is not a prejudice - Singer’s argument fails!!!

Question 9

Explain modal personism

Answer 9

Kagan

Person: a rational, self-conscious being aware of itself as one among others, extended through time

3 problem groups…

1. non-persons who will become persons
2. humans who were persons but are no longer
3. humans who are not and never will be persons

What gives a person rights is a metaphysical fact: being MODAL PERSON - someone who could have been a person
- being part of a person species is a sufficient but not necessary condition for higher moral status