Animal Issues NML Flashcards
(32 cards)
What are blood sports?
Blood sports are forms of entertainment that involve the hunting, harming, or killing of animals for human amusement, often including activities like bullfighting, dog fighting, or animal-based combat shows
How would NML approach the issue of bull fighting?
-Under Natural Moral Law, blood sports such as bullfighting would not be considered morally wrong in themselves because Aquinas saw animals as lacking intrinsic moral status
-He was inspired by Aristotle’s theory of the soul, which placed animals below humans due to their lack of rationality
-Only humans have rational souls and are capable of participating in eternal and divine law
What did Aquinas say about the Hierarchy of souls and how does it link to bullfighting?
-Aquinas writes that “the life of animals and plants is preserved not for themselves, but for man,” clearly placing animals within a hierarchy where their worth is instrumental
-Bullfighting, while involving suffering, could be justified if it provides cultural value, entertainment, or serves a human purpose
-Aquinas’ concern about cruelty arises only when it has a corrupting effect on human virtue — for example, if repeated violence fosters insensitivity or vice
-However, in terms of Natural Moral Law’s core precepts, such as preserving human life and upholding the order of creation, the death or suffering of animals in events like bullfighting would not be morally problematic
How would Aquinas respond to the issue of orca captivity at sea world?
-Natural Moral Law would permit the captivity of orcas at SeaWorld, as it aligns with the view that animals may be used for human benefit in areas such as education, research, or leisure
-Aquinas does not oppose the use of animals for such purposes because they are not moral agents and do not possess souls capable of salvation
What bible quote would support Aquinas’ view on blood sports and how would it link to sea world?
-Genesis his reinforces this perspective by granting humans dominion to “rule over the fish in the sea,” legitimising their use as part of the created order
-Unlike modern theories that assign moral consideration to animals themselves, Natural Moral Law views them as subordinate to human flourishing
-Any welfare concerns are secondary — what matters is whether their use serves a genuine human good
-The psychological harm or unnatural conditions imposed on orcas, for instance, would only be morally relevant if they led humans to become callous or morally diminished
-In themselves, these issues hold no weight in Aquinas’ framework, which does not recognise animal suffering as a moral issue unless it indirectly harms human character
What is a key strength of NML’s approach to blood sports?
-A key strength of Aquinas’ Natural Moral Law is that it offers moral clarity by grounding ethical judgement in a fixed, rational understanding of purpose (or telos) set by God»_space;Within this system, animals are considered to exist for human use, since they lack rational souls and do not participate in eternal law.
-Aquinas writes that “the life of animals and plants is preserved not for themselves, but for man,” clearly establishing a hierarchy that gives humans dominion
-This framework provides moral clarity on blood sports: they are not inherently immoral if they serve a legitimate human purpose, such as food, education, or even cultural expression
-Bullfighting is permissible under NML because Aquinas believed animals have no intrinsic moral value; they exist for human use and lack rational souls, so their suffering is not morally relevant.
-The captivity of orcas at SeaWorld is also permitted under NML, as their wellbeing holds no direct moral weight — they may be used for education or entertainment if it benefits humans, since only human virtue matters.
-This consistent focus on human moral development ensures that decisions about blood sports remain grounded in reason, aligned with the fixed moral order established by Natural Law(unlike Situation Ethics, which bases moral judgement on changing emotional responses/unlike Virtue Ethics, which relies heavily on individual interpretation and emotional perception of character)
Why may people argue that NML’s approach to blood sport isn’t strong?
-critics argue that NML is too anthropocentric and overlooks the ethical significance of animal suffering
-Scholars such as Karen Barad challenge Aquinas’ position, claiming that “an animal’s capacities have value independent of their usefulness to human beings»This view implies that animals have moral worth beyond their function, making blood sports like bullfighting and orca captivity morally problematic regardless of human benefit
-Peter Singer likewise condemns this human-centred approach as “speciesist,” arguing that “the pain of a being should count equally with the like pain of any other being,” regardless of species
-From his utilitarian perspective, the suffering endured by bulls in arenas or orcas in captivity is morally unjustifiable, and the failure of NML to recognise this amounts to ethical blindness
-Furthermore, critics argue that NML lacks compassion and is outdated, rooted in an ancient worldview where the moral status of non-human life was barely considered
-In the case of orca captivity, many would say that the suffering, distress, and shortened lifespan of animals used for entertainment is morally unacceptable
-A theory that overlooks such suffering may seem too rigid or dehumanising, particularly when compared to approaches like Situation Ethics, which would reject blood sports as unloving and contrary to “agape”
What rebuttal argument would Aquinas offer to people who would argue his view on blood sports overlooks animal suffering?
-While critics argue that NML ignores animal suffering, this actually highlights a strength rather than a flaw
-Natural Moral Law remains clear and consistent precisely because it does not rely on subjective emotions like empathy or outrage.
-Aquinas does not claim that animals have moral rights, but instead focuses on the moral development of humans
-If blood sports encourage vice — such as cruelty or indifference to life — they are wrong, not because of the animal’s pain, but because of the harm to human character.
-This is supported by Genesis, where God commands humans to “rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground»_space;The verse reinforces human dominion over animals, but also implies a duty to use that power responsibly.
-This means NML can condemn blood sports when they damage the moral agent, while still avoiding emotional bias.
-Its strength lies in offering an objective standard, rooted in reason and divine law, rather than changing with cultural attitudes or individual feelings
What is intensive farming?
Intensive farming is a type of agriculture that aims to produce the highest possible yield of crops or livestock using limited land, often through methods that prioritise efficiency and output over animal welfare or environmental impact
How would Aquinas approach the issue of intensive farming?
-Natural Moral Law supports intensive farming because it is grounded in the belief that all created things have a God-given purpose (telos), and animals exist to serve human needs
-Aquinas, influenced by Aristotle’s hierarchy of souls, taught that only humans have rational souls and are capable of knowing and following divine lawAs a result, animals do not have intrinsic moral worth
What quote from Aquinas encapsulates his view on intensive farming?
-Aquinas states that “the life of animals and plants is preserved not for themselves, but for man,” clearly placing them below humans in moral status
-From this, it follows that animals may be used to sustain human life, meaning intensive farming (such as battery farming of chickens or large-scale livestock production) can be seen as morally acceptable
-These practices serve the human purpose of survival and nutrition, which links directly to the primary precept of preserving life, one of the core principles of Natural Moral Law
How does Aquinas’ belief about the bible link to intensive farming?
-Natural Moral Law also supports intensive farming by appealing to the divine order of creation and the proper role of humans within it
-According to Genesis 1:28, God commands humanity to “rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground”-This verse establishes not only human superiority but also a divine mandate for dominion over animals, legitimising their use for human benefit
-From this view, farming practices that maximise food production (such as factory farming )help fulfil the human role of steward and provider
How does Aquinas’ biblical view on dominion and intensive farming link to the primary precepts?
- it directly links to the primary precepts of living in an ordered society and reproducing, as intensive farming allows growing populations to be fed, stabilises economies, and supports family life
-Since Aquinas’ Natural Moral Law judges actions by their alignment with rational purpose and divine design, it affirms the moral acceptability of intensive farming when it meets essential human needs
What’s a key strength of Aquinas’ approach to intensive farming?
-A key strength of Aquinas’ Natural Moral Law is that it offers moral clarity by grounding ethical judgement in a fixed, rational understanding of purpose (or telos)set by God»Within this system, animals are considered to exist for human use, since they lack rational souls and do not participate in eternal law
-Aquinas writes that “the life of animals and plants is preserved not for themselves, but for man,” clearly establishing a hierarchy that gives humans dominion
-This framework provides moral clarity on issues like intensive farming: practices such as battery farming or factory farming are not inherently immoral if they serve a legitimate human purpose, such as providing affordable food, sustaining livelihoods, or supporting food security
-For example, keeping chickens in cages may be permitted under NML if it helps meet the precept of preserving life, by making protein accessible to large populations. The suffering of the animals, though real, is not seen as morally significant in itself unless it corrupts human virtue by encouraging cruelty or neglect of stewardship. -This consistent focus on human moral development ensures that decisions about intensive farming remain grounded in reason, not emotional subjectivity
Why may people argue that Aquinas’ approach to intensive farming is too anthropocentric?
-critics argue that NML is too anthropocentric and fails to recognise the moral weight of animal suffering, especially in modern agricultural systems
-Philosopher Tom Regan has argued that animals are “subjects-of-a-life,” meaning they have their own experiences and interests, and should not be treated as mere means to human ends
-From this view, intensive farming methods — such as battery cages, overcrowded barns, and forced growth — inflict unnecessary suffering that would be condemned by a more compassionate ethical theory
-Peter Singer similarly condemns speciesism and insists that “the pain of a being should count equally with the like pain of any other being,” which directly challenges Aquinas’ belief that animals lack moral worth
-Situation Ethics, for example, would likely reject battery farming as unloving and degrading, since it shows no agapeic concern for the creature’s welfare
-While NML appeals to fixed order and divine design, critics argue that its failure to adapt to modern understandings of animal sentience renders it outdated and morally insufficient when assessing practices like intensive farming
What might Aquinas’ rebuttal argument be for people who argue his view on intensive farming is to anthropocentric and rigid?
-While critics argue that NML overlooks animal suffering, this actually reinforces the theory’s strength in offering clear, objective moral principles
-Natural Moral Law remains consistent because it does not depend on fluctuating emotional responses or cultural trends
-Aquinas does not assign rights to animals, but instead focuses on their role in supporting human moral and physical flourishing
-If intensive farming promotes vice (such as greed, wastefulness, or desensitisation)then it is wrong not because of the animal’s pain, but because of its corrupting effect on human character
-Genesis commands humans to “rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground,” giving dominion, but also a responsibility to act as good stewards
-NML allows intensive farming when it serves necessary human purposes, like food security, but condemns it if it becomes exploitative or encourages moral decline
Extra strength: it can inform and support agricultural policy providing stable ethical boundaries in a sector where emotional arguments and moral disagreements often stall reform
What is medical research on animals?
Medical research on animals involves using animals to study diseases, test drugs, and develop medical treatments before they are used on humans
How would Aquinas respond to the issue of medical research on animals?
-Natural Moral Law supports medical research because it aligns with the telos, or God-given purpose, of human beings to preserve life, seek truth, and fulfil their rational nature
-According to Aquinas, all moral actions must align with the primary precepts, which include preserving life, living in an ordered society, and pursuing knowledge
-These precepts justify medical research that aims to cure diseases, reduce suffering, or improve public health
-For example, clinical trials or the development of treatments for conditions like cancer or diabetes would be considered morally good, as they contribute to human flourishing and protect life
What’s a quote from Aquinas that supports his view on medical research?
-Aquinas’ foundational rule that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil avoided” underlines this, showing that the pursuit of medical advancement is part of fulfilling our natural moral duty
-Since Natural Moral Law is absolutist and based on reason, it offers clear, objective approval of medical research when it promotes genuine human wellbeing
How does Aristotle’s hierarchy of souls influence Aristotle’s view on medical research?
-Aquinas also supported the use of animals in ways that serve human needs, including medical research, building on Aristotle’s belief in a hierarchy of souls
-Aristotle taught that only humans have the rational soul, placing them above animals, which he believed exist to serve human ends. Aquinas developed this by arguing that animals, lacking rationality, cannot share in eternal law and therefore do not have intrinsic moral status
What quote supports Aquinas’ view on medical research in terms of the hierarchy of souls?
-he writes that “the life of animals and plants is preserved not for themselves, but for man,” clearly positioning animals as subordinate in the moral order
-This supports the use of animal testing in medical research (for example, experiments on mice to develop vaccines or treatments) when it contributes to the primary precepts, especially preserving life and gaining knowledge
What Bible quote would support Aquinas’ view on medical research?
-His view is reinforced by Genesis 1:28, where God commands humans to “rule over every living creature that moves on the ground,” giving them dominion and responsibility
What are the key strengths of Aquinas’ approach to medical research?
-A key strength of Aquinas’ Natural Moral Law is that it offers moral clarity by grounding ethical judgement in a fixed, rational understanding of purpose (or telos) set by God
-Within this system, animals are considered to exist for human use, since they lack rational souls and do not participate in eternal law
-Aquinas writes that “the life of animals and plants is preserved not for themselves, but for man,” clearly establishing a hierarchy that gives humans dominion
-This framework provides moral clarity on issues like scientific and medical research: practices such as animal testing are not inherently immoral if they serve a legitimate human purpose, such as curing diseases, preserving life, or advancing medical knowledge
-For example, testing treatments on mice or primates may be morally acceptable under NML if it contributes to human survival or reduces suffering
-The harm to animals, though real, is not morally significant in itself unless it corrupts human virtue
-This consistent focus on rational human development ensures that decisions about medical research remain grounded in reason, not emotional subjectivity
Why would some people criticise Aquinas’ approach to medical research?
-critics argue that NML is too anthropocentric and fails to recognise the moral weight of animal suffering, particularly in scientific experimentation
-Philosopher Tom Regan argued that animals are “subjects-of-a-life,” with their own experiences and interests, and should not be reduced to tools for human advancement
-From this perspective, using animals in experiments — especially those causing pain or death — is morally wrong, even if it benefits humans
-Peter Singer similarly opposes speciesism, stating that “the pain of a being should count equally with the like pain of any other being,” which directly challenges Aquinas’ view that animals lack moral worth. Virtue ethicists might also object, claiming that certain forms of research reflect cruelty or insensitivity rather than virtuous character
-While NML appeals to fixed order and divine design, critics argue that its failure to engage with modern understandings of animal cognition and sentience makes it outdated when dealing with ethical challenges in research
