Why Philosophy?

Philosophy: A study of the processes governing thought and conduct. A system of principles for the conduct of life. A study of human morals.

Philosophers are concerned with: What kinds of things exist? What can we know? What ought I to do? Ethics or Moral Philosophy

ETHICS A systematic account of right and wrong. Ethics = morals to philosophers

You can’t choose to have philosophical views or not - EVERYONE HAS THEM. The question is --- What are they? What are your views based upon? HOW SHOULD WE TREAT ANIMALS - HOW SHOULD WE TREAT ANIMALS - AND WHY?

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES Aristotle > Born 384 bce Died 322 bce > Considered still one of world’s greatest minds.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES Aristotle > Ethical issues, including those relating to animals, important to him.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES Aristotle > Student of Plato (tutor to Alexander the Great). >Had to flee Rome for “lack of reverence for the gods.”

“Rationality” separate and superior to “Emotionality” Mind/body duality

GREAT CHAIN OF BEING Matter -- Inert, no activity

GREAT CHAIN OF BEING Plants -- Take in nutrition, grow, reproduce Matter -- Inert, no activity

GREAT CHAIN OF BEING Animals -- All below + Motility & Sensation Plants -- Take in nutrition, grow, reproduce Matter -- Inert, no activity

GREAT CHAIN OF BEING Slaves/children -- All below, language, no reason Animals -- All below + Motility & Sensation Plants -- Take in nutrition, grow, reproduce Matter -- Inert, no activity

GREAT CHAIN OF BEING Free females -- All below + Little ability to Reason Slaves/children -- All below, language, no reason Animals -- All below + Motility & Sensation Plants -- Take in nutrition, grow, reproduce Matter -- Inert, no activity

GREAT CHAIN OF BEING Free males -- All below + Ability to Reason Free females -- All below + Little ability to Reason Slaves/children -- All below, language, no reason Animals -- All below + Motility & Sensation Plants -- Take in nutrition, grow, reproduce Matter -- Inert, no activity

GREAT CHAIN OF BEING God -- Pure Rationality/Thought Free males -- All below + Ability to Reason Free females -- All below + Little ability to Reason Slaves/children -- All below, language, no reason Animals -- All below + Motility & Sensation Plants -- Take in nutrition, grow, reproduce Matter -- Inert, no activity

It is the duty of those with reason to rule those who do not have it. If an entity is ‘ruled by’ another, then it must exist for the purposes of others. Not accepted by all Greeks - Pythagoras a vegetarian (might contain souls of dead men)

DESCARTES > 1596 to 1650 > “I think, therefore I am.” > Still believed to be on of world’s greatest minds. > World is composed of only MATTER and INTELLECT

BODIES HAVE NO MINDS - Mind/body duality Descartes agreed w/ Aristotle that only humans could be rational. Therefore, animals only ‘matter,’ like machines “automata.” Have sensations, but no awareness of them.

Thus, a writhing, screaming dog was not experiencing pain, merely moving like a clock. Descartes illustrated by pinning dogs to a wall, eviscerating them and explaining to onlookers that the dog’s actions were merely mindless responses.

KANT > > Known for treasuring intellectual and moral integrity. > Profound influence on philosophical thought. > Each person has INTRINSIC VALUE - can’t make decisions based on utility or end result. A GOOD END DOESN’T JUSTIFY THE MEANS

KANT: Obligations to animals INDIRECT If hurt an animal, might hurt its owner might develop a bad habit that would lead to hurting humans.

KANT: WHO COUNTS MORALLY? The only individuals that count in a moral equation are those that can reason. The basis for who counts is rationality, not who can feel pleasure or pain.

PETER SINGER > Current Australian philosopher > Famous for “Animal Liberation” > Clear bias (brags has never been to a farm)

Argues that REASON is not the issue-- the ability to SUFFER is. > Ability to reason is arbitrary, like skin color or sex. > Any animal who can suffer should be included in the moral equation.

Argues that REASON is not the issue-- the ability to SUFFER is. > Each animal in the “moral equation” counts equally.

INDIVIDUALIST The individual is the center of value ETHICAL HEDONIST Pleasure has value, pain has dis-value

So disagrees with Descartes - Argues animals can suffer Disagrees with Kant We have DIRECT duties to animals

BE THOUGHTFUL ABOUT WORDS “Eating meat” vs. “Eating slaughtered non-humans” “Meat” vs. “murdered flesh” “Vivisection” vs. “surgery”

“What, for instance, are we to do about genuine conflicts of interest genuine conflicts of interest like rats biting slum children? I am not sure of the answer, but the essential point is that we do see this as a conflict of interest, rats have interests that we recognize that rats have intereststoo.” Peter Singer

UTILITARIAN > Developed by Bentham “The question is not can they reason, but can they suffer?”

UTILITARIAN > Developed by Bentham “The question is not can they reason, but can they suffer?” > If count in the moral equation, all count equally.

UTILITARIAN > Developed by Bentham “The question is not can they reason, but can they suffer?” > If count in the moral equation, all count equally. Resolve conflicts by summing total pleasure > Resolve conflicts by summing total pleasure vs. pain.

Criticisms of Utilitarianism Sum A) B) Clearly A is a better solution than B.

Sum A) B)

Sum A) B) What if 1, 2 and 3 in “A” are tortured kittens?

DISTRIBUTION The DISTRIBUTION problem: Rich, cruel & nasty aunt Has willed her fortune to orphanage If Utilitarian, why not kill her?

Second problem: How quantify the factors? Third problem: Summing the values leads to a value that is the property of a GROUP, but Utilitarian Philos honors the INDIVIDUAL.