Lecture 8 Flashcards
(33 cards)
what are the different types of vegetarianism
moral and non-moral
what is non-moral vegetarianism
to save money, dont like meat, aesthetic reasons
what are the types of moral vegatarianis
humans based
animal based
what are the reasons for human based moral vegetarianism
redistribution argument
waste argument
argument from effect on character
what is redistribution argument
takes a lot of food to feed animals, we should use this food to feed humans instead and combat hunger
what is waste argument
meat industry produces lots of waste, so much water and land needed, should use this for humans instead
what is argument from effect on character
not eating meat is a good way to develop moral character
what are the subsections of animal based moral vegetarianism
the argument from killing: killing is wrong
The argument from pain nd suffering
what are the two views of “argument from killing”
consequentialist
deontological
do singer and rachel agree on the argument from killing
no, they have different perspectives;
singer is consequentialist
rachels in deontological
do singer and rachels agree on the argument from pain and suffering
yes
what are singer’s consequentialist arguments from killing
indirect and direct consequences
what must we remember about consequentalists
for consequentialist; killing isnt always wrong! Killing hitler would kind of be bad but the good would outweigh the bad
so when asking what is wrong with killing animals, have to keep in mind the balancing excersise
according to the consequentialist view, in an ideal world where they would not have any pain or suffering can we kill them?
that is the whole argument
what is meant by indirect consequences
indirect because it doesnt actually impact the being itself
what are the indirect consequences
other animals fear being killed as well– if you kill one pig, the other pigs may have fear that they will be killed too (so it impacts others)
animals form bonds and mourn the deceased– animals form bonds, and when you kill one animal (a baby cow) the mother will be very sad and will be in pain
what are the direct consequences
dying is painful (but we are considering the ideal world so this doesn’t count)
killing animals deprives the world of future happiness
it thwarts some animals interest in living
what is meat by killing animals deprives the world of future happiness
suppose your chicken was very happy, killing the chicken deprives the world of happiness
but if your chicken is verysad then you actually stop the world from sadness which would actually be good
but again we assume we live in an ideal world and all your hickens are happy
what is meant by it thwarts some animals interest in living
aka violates the interest
when you kill something it violates its interest in living
taking not account that it “violates its interest in living” we must define the concept of a person; what is a person
a person is a rational and self-conscious being
person forms desires for the future
a person has an interest in living
what are example of person
some humans apes (singer talks about experiment with ape; taught ape signlangiage and when they pointed to the mirror and asked “who is that” the ape responded with “that is Washoe (me)”) whales and dolphins some mammals (pigs and cows)
what are some non person
infants and fetuses individuals with severe mental disabilities individuals in coma fish shrimp birds?
what is singer’s first conclusions about the argument from killing
killing person always entails something wrong (the violation of an interest in living)
when killing a person we have to balance the good and bad consequences
what is meant by, when killing a person we have to balance the good and bad consequences
when killing pigs for food, we have toe right the pleasure humans get from eating pigs and the violation of the pigs interest in living. since this violation outweighs the pleasure we get, it is not morally permissible to eat pigs
