animals Flashcards
1
Q
nml view of animals
A
- adopted aristotle’s hierarchy of souls so humans>plants/animals
- animals irrational so they have instrumental value not intrinsic
- final end is to serve humans so anything tthat does this i correct
- but thought it was wrong to be cruel to animals due to impact on human relationships
- animal sufferring would be matter of concern only when involving cruelty but this concern only arose as humans may be desensitised in their attitudes to another
- animals for medical testing fulfils their purpose
- catechism of catholic church states animals are created by god with intrinsic value so ‘men owe them kindness’
- animal testing permitted due to value of human well-being but suffering is kept to minimum
2
Q
situation ethics view of animals
A
- gives no clear guidance on animal issues as is a case of decing whether or not principles should be extended to include animals
- personalism presupposition is person focused & may suggest even if animals should be given consideration, humans take priority
- many who agree with the theory see animals as included in god’s love
- agape love is inclusive thather than exclusive & not intrinsic reason why it shouldn’t apply to animals
3
Q
virtue ethics view of animals
A
- aristotle created hierarchy of souls where plants are for animals & animals for humans
- no factory farms in aristotle’s time of scientific procedures
- did dissect animals as part of own investigations into animal behaviour
- approach on animals based on teleological view that all things have finals end
4
Q
nml & intensive farming
A
- if animals are for human use then aquinas’ natural moral law justifies using animals for food it justifies intensive farming
- issue of whether animals have a right to life isn’t a right to life isn’t relevant to aquinas’ system as any potential right for animals are under rights of humans
- those who support aquinas see humanity as having greater value than animals
5
Q
situation ethics & intensive farming
A
- most loving thing would be to increase it & mechanisms of agriculture as puts person first as some argue it should be increased to reduce global hunger (795 undernourished)
- others say its only short term thinking and suggest reduce meat production as contributes to human starvation as cattle consume 15x more grain than they can produce so most loving thing is to abandon intensive farming
- without existence of animals probable humans would’ve died out HOWEVER we know we can survive without eating meat so shouldn’t need to farm intensively
6
Q
virtue ethics & intensive farming
A
- no issue with eating meat as he considered them to exist for sake of humans
- in modern context, unsure of how’d he’d react to intensive farming
- main virtue to consider is compassion - intensive farming isn’t remotely compassionate
- what virtues can be gained/developed from such conditions
7
Q
nml & animal science
A
- if status of animal is no greater than being human property then use of animals in science isn’t in itself immoral as experiments may develop cures for human disease
- acceptable to catholic church
- using it to cure terminal diseases in humans would fulfil primary precept to preserve life
- if pain inflicted is necessary for the procedure it is permitted but if it is not necessary then aquinas would not permit it
- if it changes nature of animal it is wrong as god created them to fulfil their purpose as that species
8
Q
situation ethics & animal science
A
- fletcher involved with cloning research so likely his approach to se would allow
- advocated it is a pragmatic way of saving humanity by developing vaccines (working principles)
- some argue it is never loving to subject an animal to kind of testing the experiments require
- public opinion generally not in favour due to effects
- fletcher viewed it in this light as promoting human well-being & saving lives
- demands of agape would mean there should be minimum suffering for animals involved
9
Q
virtue ethics & animal science
A
- aristotle himself used animals in science experiments so clearly regards it as compatible with a virtous character
- insisted the highest thing in us is reason & we further this by science & by extension animals
- cloning has ability to control disease in animals improving their health
- biggest objection is lack of control of their suffering
- a person of good character would insist on an anaesthetic as this would be compassionate
- other ve object as isn’t compassionate at all
10
Q
nml & blood sports
A
- little to no objection as humans are to use them as see fit and if animals dies then its fine as it reached end goal of serving human
- pain and suffering inflicted upon animals is acceptable as part of that use
- however hard to see how an animal that is killed has chance of fulfilling end it was created for
- catholic church would disagree as its catechism says ‘men owe animals kindness’ & given there’s nothing kind about it & causes animals to die needlessly they’d disagree
11
Q
situation ethics & blood sports
A
- agape demands compassion not cruelty
- may damage character & perhaps led to violence and desensitise people into inflicting pain for pleasure
- likely wouldn’t put interests of human over animal where human pleasure gained at expense of animal pain
- banned fox hunting in england, scotland & wales support view its unethical but can argue its agapeic as foxes do damage to chickens
- hunting is less unloving than factory farming & conserves environment
12
Q
virtue ethics & blood sports
A
- common greek pastime & source of food so would allow
- modern debate - hunting animals in public upset people
- participation in blood sport suggest lack of consideration for animals
- some may appeal to virtue of temperance arguing experiencing pleasure at expense of others don’t make good character
- hursthouse argues blood sports shows vice of callousness/indifference to animals & those who sympathise
- many sports demonstrate reasoned courage like karate/cave diving but in blood sports it’s more callous than courageous
13
Q
nml & animals for transplants
A
- not something aquinas would’ve thought about
- moral right to use animals as see fit with safeguards (no trying to modify germline) would be accepted
- unless its accepted that its end is to serve humans then hard to see how animal being killed as result of organs removed would fulfil end goal
14
Q
situation ethics & animals for transplants
A
- aimed at people & for most animals don’t qualify as people but for others they do so depends on the person
- potential for helping vast number of humans have been seen as applying vast scale of agapeic calculus
- transplanting human cancerous materials into animals would be justified as promoting agape on huge scale
- some say as beings with social/cognitive functions animals qualify as donors should be dead/consenting (animals can’t consent)
- humans are only pragmatic source
- pigs likely animal for it
15
Q
virtue ethics & animals for transplant
A
most arguments for this are similar to that of using animals for science
