Difference between revisions of "Ethical Treatment of Animals"
From Alfino
Jump to navigationJump to search| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
===Arguments=== | ===Arguments=== | ||
| − | :*Post arguments that you find or want to put forward on this topic. You can research arguments by doing a Google search, but also by consulting databases like Philosopher's Index, Academic Search Complete, and Proquest. | + | :*Post arguments that you find or want to put forward on this topic. You can research arguments by doing a Google search, but also by consulting databases like Philosopher's Index, Academic Search Complete, and Proquest. |
| + | |||
| + | :* Darwin's evolution argument: humans are no different from animals because we have the same origin. Traditional morality is "speciesist," indicating that humans are above all other creatures and were only created in God's image. Using Darwin's theory of evolution, this idea can be rejected. This implies that humans may have a moral duty to animals because there is not a distinction between the two creatures, and should therefore not be a moral distinction. (Citation: Kaufman, Whitley. "Does Animal Ethics Need A Darwinian Revolution?." Ethical Theory & Moral Practice 17.4 (2014): 807-818. Academic Search Complete. Web. 7 Feb. 2016) -Jordan Thurston | ||
| + | |||
| + | :* Radical Abolitionism argument: non-human animals have a moral status and animal use should be abolished because of JUSTICE. This counteracts the resource paradigm that animals are resources for humans to use. This paradigm does not address the underlying issue of animal rights, that treatment of animals does not matter as much as injustice towards animals. The resource paradigm (according to this article's argument) is unjust. There is a less radical argument along the lines of radical abolitionism called "welfarism" where animals DO have a moral status, but humans can use animals as long as they do not suffer. This suggests that humans do have a duty to animals, but does not go so far as to say that they cannot use animals as a resource. (Citation: Wyckoff, Jason. "Toward Justice For Animals." Journal Of Social Philosophy 45.4 (2014): 539-553.Academic Search Complete. Web. 7 Feb. 2016) -Jordan Thurston | ||
===Insights=== | ===Insights=== | ||
:*Post here under your name (or login anonymously and either use your saint name (if you want me to know who you are) or make up your own. Post a brief statement of your views as they are evolving on the topic. What arguments, values, and facts are central (or gaining prominence) in your thinking? | :*Post here under your name (or login anonymously and either use your saint name (if you want me to know who you are) or make up your own. Post a brief statement of your views as they are evolving on the topic. What arguments, values, and facts are central (or gaining prominence) in your thinking? | ||
Revision as of 22:46, 7 February 2016
Return to Ethics
Ethical Treatment of Animals
- What values and obligations should govern our treatment of animals? Is it morally acceptable to have pets and eat animals? If not, why? But even if it is acceptable to eat animals, what standards of treatment should govern our treatment of them? How do we extend values from human ethics to our treatment of animals?
- Resource Needs:
- Fundamental arguments in animal rights; how do philosopher's think we should think about extending moral categories for humans to animals?
- Arguments from animal liberationists to defenders of animal agriculture.
- Information and analysis about the state of industrial agriculture.
- Information on sentience, pain, and natural behaviors of animals
Information
- Post summaries of something you learned about the topic that is important to thinking about it. Consult the resource needs list above for ideas. Use both Google searches leading to authoritative information and online databases, books, and articles linked through Foley Library.
Arguments
- Post arguments that you find or want to put forward on this topic. You can research arguments by doing a Google search, but also by consulting databases like Philosopher's Index, Academic Search Complete, and Proquest.
- Darwin's evolution argument: humans are no different from animals because we have the same origin. Traditional morality is "speciesist," indicating that humans are above all other creatures and were only created in God's image. Using Darwin's theory of evolution, this idea can be rejected. This implies that humans may have a moral duty to animals because there is not a distinction between the two creatures, and should therefore not be a moral distinction. (Citation: Kaufman, Whitley. "Does Animal Ethics Need A Darwinian Revolution?." Ethical Theory & Moral Practice 17.4 (2014): 807-818. Academic Search Complete. Web. 7 Feb. 2016) -Jordan Thurston
- Radical Abolitionism argument: non-human animals have a moral status and animal use should be abolished because of JUSTICE. This counteracts the resource paradigm that animals are resources for humans to use. This paradigm does not address the underlying issue of animal rights, that treatment of animals does not matter as much as injustice towards animals. The resource paradigm (according to this article's argument) is unjust. There is a less radical argument along the lines of radical abolitionism called "welfarism" where animals DO have a moral status, but humans can use animals as long as they do not suffer. This suggests that humans do have a duty to animals, but does not go so far as to say that they cannot use animals as a resource. (Citation: Wyckoff, Jason. "Toward Justice For Animals." Journal Of Social Philosophy 45.4 (2014): 539-553.Academic Search Complete. Web. 7 Feb. 2016) -Jordan Thurston
Insights
- Post here under your name (or login anonymously and either use your saint name (if you want me to know who you are) or make up your own. Post a brief statement of your views as they are evolving on the topic. What arguments, values, and facts are central (or gaining prominence) in your thinking?
