Animal Issues SE Flashcards
(27 cards)
How would Fletcher approach the issue of bull fighting?
-Situation Ethics, developed by Joseph Fletcher, would approach bullfighting through the lens of agape — unconditional love — which Fletcher saw as the only absolute moral principle
-Rather than judging actions by fixed rules, Situation Ethics evaluates each case based on what leads to the most loving outcome. In the case of bullfighting, a Situation Ethicist would consider whether the practice truly demonstrates agapeic concern
-Since bullfighting often results in severe injury and death for the bull, and involves deliberate suffering for entertainment, it is unlikely to be seen as loving
What did Fletcher say about what is intrinsically good and how does it link to bull fighting?
-Fletcher taught that “only one thing is intrinsically good; namely, love,” and this means that acts which glorify violence or devalue life are incompatible with agape
-Even if defenders argue for cultural tradition or community cohesion, these outcomes do not outweigh the pain and fear inflicted on the animal
-Because it does not promote human or animal well-being in a meaningful way, bullfighting would likely be rejected as unloving and therefore morally wrong under Situation Ethics
How would Fletcher approach the issue of captivity at sea world?
-Situation Ethics would also take a context-based approach to the captivity of orcas at SeaWorld, judging the practice according to whether it leads to loving outcomes in the specific situation
-Fletcher rejected legalistic rules and argued that moral decisions must be guided by agape in each unique case
-If keeping orcas in artificial enclosures leads to physical deterioration, stress, shortened lifespans, and psychological trauma (as widely documented) then a Situation Ethicist would conclude that the practice fails to show love
What is a quote from Fletcher that could link to captivity at sea world?
-Fletcher taught that “only one thing is intrinsically good; namely, love,” and this means that acts which glorify violence or devalue life are incompatible with agape
-Even if defenders argue for cultural tradition or community cohesion, these outcomes do not outweigh the pain and fear inflicted on the animal
-Because it does not promote human or animal well-being in a meaningful way, bullfighting would likely be rejected as unloving and therefore morally wrong under Situation Ethics
How would you argue situation ethics doesn’t give clear response to blood sport?
-While Situation Ethics relies on emotional judgement and subjective interpretations of love, this often results in vague and inconsistent outcomes
-In contrast, a key strength of Natural Moral Law is that it offers moral clarity by grounding ethical judgement in a fixed understanding of purpose — or telos — set by God
How could you argue that situation ethics gives a clearer response to blood sports?
-supporters of Situation Ethics argue that it offers a more compassionate approach. Founded by Joseph Fletcher, the theory is based on agape (selfless love)and judges each action by whether it leads to the most loving outcome
-Fletcher famously stated, “We are always commanded to act lovingly, but how we do it depends on our own responsible estimate of the situation”
-From this view, practices like bullfighting or orca captivity would be rejected as unloving, since they involve pain and suffering for animals without sufficient justification
-Situation Ethics would not appeal to tradition or social order but would instead ask whether these acts promote well-being or compassion. Given that blood sports typically involve violence for entertainment, Fletcher’s approach would likely condemn them as morally unacceptable
-Because it prioritises empathy and situational understanding, many argue that it offers a more humane moral response
(Could argue that it is precisely this flexibility that makes Situation Ethics less clear and consistent than Natural Moral Law. What one person sees as loving, another might interpret differently — leading to moral uncertainty)
How could you argue situation ethics gives a better approach to blood sports than virtue?
-The strength of Situation Ethics lies in its responsiveness to suffering and its rejection of inflexible rules. Joseph Fletcher taught that “only one thing is intrinsically good; namely, love,” and moral decisions should be made based on what brings about the most loving outcome in any given context
-In the case of bullfighting, where animals are subjected to fear, injury, and death for human entertainment, a Situation Ethicist would judge the act to be unloving and therefore morally wrong
-Similarly, orca captivity at places like SeaWorld deprives intelligent animals of their natural behaviours and causes long-term psychological harm. Situation Ethics would likely reject this too, since it places emotional and physical well-being at the centre of moral concern
-Unlike Virtue Ethics, which may get lost in abstract ideals of character, Situation Ethics delivers a clear verdict: if an action causes unjustifiable suffering, it fails the test of agape
What would Fletcher’s response be to people who believe virtue ethics gives a clearer response to blood sports?
-the strength of Situation Ethics is that it applies moral concern directly to the suffering at hand. While Virtue Ethics values personal development, it offers little clear action-guidance — and different individuals may disagree on what a “virtuous” response looks like
-One person may view orca captivity as cruel, another may see it as educational, and both could claim to be virtuous
-Situation Ethics, by contrast, cuts through this ambiguity by prioritising outcomes rooted in agape
-Fletcher emphasised that “love wills the neighbour’s good,” and this concern for well-being can be extended to sentient animals. Where Virtue Ethics remains tied to subjective views of character, Situation Ethics makes moral decisions based on compassion and practical care — especially important when blood sports inflict real suffering and public debate demands clarity
Extra quote: Fletcher puts it, “love is not something we have or are, it is something we do,” and in the context of blood sports, this active love demands we challenge practices that cause unnecessary pain
How would situation ethics approach the issue of intensive farming?
-Situation Ethics, developed by Joseph Fletcher, would likely reject intensive farming because it fails to show agape (selfless, unconditional love) to animals
-Fletcher argued that “only one thing is intrinsically good; namely, love,” meaning that moral actions must be judged by whether they produce the most loving outcome
-Intensive farming practices, such as battery cages, cramped sheds, and forced feeding, are driven by efficiency and profit but often cause extreme suffering to animals
-From a Situation Ethics perspective, this is unloving and morally unjustifiable. A loving response would prioritise compassion and reduce unnecessary harm to sentient beings
-Since Fletcher’s approach is personalist — putting people (and arguably sentient life) at the centre — it would likely reject any farming system that treats animals as mere tools rather than beings capable of pain and distress
How would situation ethics take a context based approach to intensive farming?
-Situation Ethics allows moral decisions to be made according to the context of the situation, rather than predetermined rules. J.A.T
-Robinson, a prominent supporter of the theory, described it as “an ethic for humanity come of age,” highlighting its rejection of legalism and its trust in human judgement
-In the context of intensive farming, this means the moral status of specific farming practices would depend on the particular circumstances
What’s an instance where intensive farming could be permitted by Fletcher?
-If a method of farming results in the least suffering possible and is necessary to feed a population in crisis, it may be justified as the most loving action in that moment
-However, in contexts where more humane alternatives are available, continuing with intensive practices may be rejected as unloving
-This situational flexibility means decisions are not automatic but must be carefully considered based on the needs of all affected, including animals
-The focus remains on whether love is served, not whether the action conforms to any fixed principle
How could you argue Fletcher gives a weak response to the issue of intensive farming?
-While Situation Ethics claims to prioritise compassion, its reliance on emotional judgement and personal interpretations of love often results in vague, inconsistent outcomes that lack clear ethical boundaries
-In contrast, Natural Moral Law offers clear, rational guidance by grounding moral decisions in a fixed understanding of purpose (or telos) set by God
How could you argue situation ethics gives a strong approach to intensive farming (stronger than NML)?
-supporters of Situation Ethics argue that it provides a more compassionate and flexible moral response to intensive farming.
Rooted in the principle of agape — selfless, unconditional love — -Joseph Fletcher’s theory would assess each situation based on whether it reflects loving concern, not fixed rules
-In the case of factory farming or battery cages, where animals are confined, stressed, and denied natural behaviours, a Situation Ethicist would likely deem such practices morally wrong
-Fletcher writes that “love is the only universal,” meaning moral judgement depends on doing the most loving thing in each circumstance
-From this view, mass-producing animals in suffering conditions for profit would not show agape towards creation or respect for life
-Situation Ethics also considers the consequences more directly, allowing for context-specific moral evaluations
-A farm that causes unnecessary harm could be condemned in one context, while small-scale animal farming might be accepted in another
-Proponents argue this approach is more morally aware and better suited to a world that increasingly recognises animal sentience and the ethical complexity of food production
How could you argue situation ethics takes a better approach to intensive farming than virtue?
-Situation Ethics, developed by Joseph Fletcher, evaluates each situation through the lens of agape, which Fletcher calls “the only intrinsic good”
-In cases of intensive farming, where animals are kept in inhumane conditions for the sake of efficiency, this ethic would likely reject such practices as unloving and morally unjustified
-Fletcher insisted that “love wills the neighbour’s good,” and while his theory is human-centred, the suffering of sentient animals would still factor into the moral agent’s decision
-Practices like battery farming involve extreme confinement, denial of natural behaviour, and routine cruelty — outcomes that a Situation Ethicist would deem incompatible with love
-Rather than relying on abstract traits or social traditions, Situation Ethics gives moral agents a clear principle: if a farming method causes avoidable suffering, it cannot be loving and is therefore wrong
-This clarity makes the theory especially useful when confronting large-scale ethical issues like industrial agriculture
How would Fletcher respond to the argument that virtue ethics is better than situation?
-Although both Virtue Ethics and Situation Ethics are flexible, the source of that flexibility makes a crucial difference
-Virtue Ethics relies on the character and judgement of the moral agent, but what counts as virtuous can vary depending on upbringing, culture, or personal ideals
-This makes it unclear how to respond to systemic issues like intensive farming, where millions of animals suffer due to decisions made by corporations or policymakers, not individual farmers
-A person might believe that supporting factory farming is prudent or economically virtuous, while another sees it as greedy or cruel — both claiming to act virtuously
-Situation Ethics, however, anchors its flexibility in the consistent principle of agape. Every decision must be justified by the most loving outcome, which provides a stable moral benchmark
-In the context of intensive farming, where animals are routinely denied freedom, dignity, and wellbeing, Situation Ethics delivers clearer moral direction: if a practice causes unnecessary suffering, it is unloving and must be rejected
-As J.A.T. Robinson wrote, “nothing but love can justify anything,” and this insistence on love as the measure of morality makes Situation Ethics more consistent and practically effective than the character-based subjectivity of Virtue Ethics
How may a situation ethicist approach the issue of scientific research? (By rejecting unnecessary suffering)
-Situation Ethics, developed by Joseph Fletcher, would approach scientific research on animals by applying its central principle of agape — selfless, unconditional love
-Fletcher argued that “love is the only universal,” meaning that moral decisions must always be guided by what produces the most loving outcome for those involved
-In cases where animal testing causes significant pain or distress for non-essential purposes, such as cosmetic research or experiments that do not lead to meaningful benefits, the practice would likely be rejected
-A Situation Ethicist would see this as unloving, since it inflicts suffering on sentient beings without a justifying good
-Because the theory is personalist — placing the needs and dignity of individuals at the centre — the moral agent must take the animal’s capacity to suffer seriously
-Practices that disregard this concern would fail the agapeic test and be considered morally unacceptable.
How may a situation ethicist approach the issue of scientific research? (Using contextual judgements)
-the flexibility of Situation Ethics also means that not all scientific use of animals would be condemned. The theory rejects legalistic thinking and instead asks what love requires in each unique situation
-If animal testing is necessary to develop treatments or save lives — for instance, testing life-saving medication or vaccines — then it may be permitted as the most loving course of action overall
-The suffering of animals would still matter, but it could be morally outweighed by the long-term benefits to human wellbeing. J.A.T. Robinson, a major supporter of the theory, described it as “an ethic for humanity come of age,” because it calls for mature, compassionate judgement rather than blind rule-following
-Situation Ethics would require the moral agent to consider all the consequences, including whether there are less harmful alternatives. -Ultimately, scientific research on animals would be evaluated not by universal bans or permissions, but by whether each case promotes agape and minimises harm wherever possible
How could you argue sutuation ethics offers a weak response to scientific researcher?
-One of the main weaknesses of Situation Ethics is that its decisions are entirely context-dependent, with no absolute moral boundaries
-While this may appear compassionate, it opens the door to subjectivity, where two people could interpret the same action in opposite ways. In contrast, it should be argued that Natural Moral Law offers more clarity by grounding ethical judgement in a fixed understanding of purpose — or telos — set by God
-its emotional flexibility is precisely what makes Situation Ethics a weaker guide in practice. While it centres love, it offers no objective method for determining what the most loving action is. What one person sees as compassionate, another might see as harmful — and both could justify their stance using the same theory
-In scientific research, where decisions affect large populations, public health, and long-term medical progress, relying on personal interpretation risks inconsistency and moral confusion
How could you argue situation ethics gives a clear response to scientific research?
-supporters of Situation Ethics would argue that it provides a more compassionate and flexible approach to scientific research.
Joseph Fletcher’s model focuses on agape - selfless love — and teaches that the most loving action in each situation is what determines what is morally right
-In cases where scientific research causes suffering, such as experiments on animals or high-risk trials, a Situation Ethicist would weigh the consequences and emotional impact before deciding. Fletcher states, “Love is the only universal,” meaning even rules like ‘do not harm’ can be broken if love requires it
-From this view, some forms of research may be deemed unloving and unjustified if they cause unnecessary harm, while others - such as stem cell therapy or experimental treatments for rare diseases - might be permitted even if they go against traditional norms. -Critics of NML might say that its rigid rules cannot account for the emotional and relational complexity involved in real-world medical ethics
Why may situation ethics be a better moral guidelines for scientific research than virtue ethics?
-A key reason Situation Ethics is clearer is that it evaluates every action based on a single guiding principle — agape
-Fletcher argued that “only one thing is intrinsically good; namely, love,” meaning that moral rightness is determined by what brings about the most loving outcome
-In the context of scientific research, particularly where animals are involved, this gives a consistent way to assess whether a practice is morally justifiable
-For instance, if testing on animals helps develop life-saving vaccines or treatments and no alternative exists, then it could be allowed as the most loving action
-However, if the same suffering is caused by experiments for cosmetic purposes or non-essential research, a Situation Ethicist would likely reject it
-Rather than appealing to fixed rules or vague ideas of virtue, the ethic asks whether the action serves real human good and minimises harm — giving moral agents a direct, compassionate guideline for decision-making
How could you respond to virtue ethicist that may argue that virtue ethics’s approach to scientific research is better?
-Although both Virtue Ethics and Situation Ethics are flexible, their flexibility is guided in different ways — and this is where Situation Ethics proves clearer
-Virtue Ethics depends on the character and moral insight of the individual, which can vary significantly across different cultures and contexts
-What one person sees as compassionate or just, another may not, especially in ethically grey areas like animal experimentation
-There are no clear criteria for resolving disagreements between competing virtues
-Situation Ethics, however, grounds its flexibility in the principle of agape — a stable and universal measure of love
-Every decision must serve the most loving outcome, which gives it a consistent foundation even when the context changes
-As J.A.T. Robinson explained, “nothing but love can justify anything,” meaning moral agents are always held accountable to a single standard
-In the field of scientific research, where the stakes are high and ethical dilemmas are complex, this makes Situation Ethics not only compassionate, but clearer and more decisive than the character-based uncertainty of Virtue Ethics
How would a situation ethicist approach the issue of xenotransplantation by prioritising love?
-Situation Ethics, developed by Joseph Fletcher, approaches ethical dilemmas by asking what is the most loving thing to do in each individual situation
-The central principle of the theory is agape — selfless, unconditional love — which guides all moral decision-making
-In the case of xenotransplantation, which involves transplanting animal organs into humans to preserve life, a Situation Ethicist would judge the act based on whether it brings about the most loving outcome
-Fletcher stated, “Only one thing is intrinsically good; namely, love,” meaning that rigid moral rules are less important than the consequences of the action
-If xenotransplantation can save a human life, reduce suffering, or offer a medical breakthrough where no alternative exists, it could be considered morally acceptable
-The use of animals is not automatically wrong in this view, as love may require using every available option to protect human life — especially if the procedure is done with care and respect for all those involved
How would a situation ethicist approach the issue of xenotransplantation by looking at context?
-Situation Ethics is also characterised by its rejection of legalism and its emphasis on context
-Fletcher argued that moral laws should be set aside if love demands it. In xenotransplantation, this means that decisions must be based on the specific circumstances — such as the urgency of the patient’s condition, the availability of alternatives, or the level of suffering that might result from inaction. For example, if the only way to save a child’s life is to use a pig’s heart valve, Situation Ethics would likely support the procedure as the most loving solution
-This reflects J.A.T. Robinson’s description of the theory as “an ethic for humanity come of age,” since it trusts moral agents to make responsible decisions rooted in love rather than rigid dogma
-However, if the procedure caused unnecessary harm to animals or was done for profit rather than genuine medical need, it could be rejected
-The core idea is that xenotransplantation is not judged in itself, but through its ability to fulfil the law of love in that particular moment
How could you argue situation ethics gives a clear response to xenotransplantation?
-Situation Ethics, developed by Joseph Fletcher, would prioritise the most loving outcome rather than a fixed rule
-Fletcher claimed, “Love is the only universal,” and believed that rules could be broken if agape required it. From this perspective, xenotransplantation might be justified if it saves a life, especially in cases where no human organ is available
-Fletcher’s theory allows for flexibility and personal responsibility, considering each case individually
-For example, in 2022, a dying man (Sir David Bennett) received a genetically modified pig heart in last attempt to preserve his life
-While controversial, many would view the attempt as compassionate and morally right in that situation. Under Situation Ethics, the act would be judged not by whether it aligns with natural law, but by whether it reflects love for the individual in need.
