The Moral Status of Animals

1. The Moral Status of Animals Kant, Singer, Steinbock

2. Kant: animals are not our equals OUT IN

3. Kant: animals are not our equals • self-aware, moral • so have dignity, are owed respect • should employ categorical imperative in dealing with each other OUT

4. Kant: animals are not our equals • we have duties to each other • we have no duties to animals OUT

5. Kant: animals are not our equals Humans can have indirect duties to humans involving animals OUT

6. Kant: animals are not our equals Case 1. Ann promised Betty to feed her cat OUT

7. Kant: animals are not our equals Case 2. Ann should avoid cruelty to kitty so she won’t later be cruel to fellow humans OUT

8. Kant: animals are not our equals We should be kind to animals for our own sake OUT IN

9. Singer: All Animals Are Equal

10. Why are all animals equal? What does “equality” mean? SINGER’S POSITION IN 10 STEPS

11. STEP 1: WHAT EQUALITY DOESN’T MEAN We can see from examining gender and race equality that equality of Xs and Ys doesn’t mean • Factual equality • Exactly equal treatment • Exactly equal rights So equality of species doesn’t mean any of the above,and isn’t patently absurd.

12. STEP 2: WHAT EQUALITY DOES MEAN “’Each to count for one and none for more than one.’ In other words, the interests of every being affected by an action are to be taken into account and given the same weight as the like interests of any other being.” (p. 279) He calls this the Principle of Equality (POE)

13. STEP 3: PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY APPLIES JUST TO SENTIENT CREATURES ”The capacity for suffering and enjoyment is a prerequisite for having any interests at all, a condition that must be satisfied before we can speak of interests in a meaningful way.” (p. 281) POE applies to all animals that feel pain POE doesn’t apply to anything else

14. STEP 4: POE SAYS TO GIVE LIKE INTERESTS LIKE CONSIDERATION

15. STEP 5: SPECIESISM IS A BIAS IN FAVOR OF ONE’S OWN SPECIES, LIKE RACISM AND SEXISM MATTERS MORE IN EVERY CASE?

16. STEP 5: HUMANS OFTEN HAVE EXTRA INTERESTS … BUT NOT ALWAYS Singer: speciesist to differentiate Singer: NOT speciesist to differentiate

17. STEP 6: SINGER IS A UTILITARIAN Should we do such an experiment? Yes, if it maximizes total happiness. We should not choose our experimental subjects in a racist, sexist, OR speciesist way. Animal RIGHTS philosophers say we should never experiment on animals.

18. STEP 7: HUMAN LIVES OFTEN HAVE MORE VALUE “This does not mean that to avoid speciesism we must hold that it as wrong to kill a dog as it is to kill a normal human being.” (p. 283) SINGER: WORSE

19. STEP 8: HUMAN LIVES DON’T ALWAYS HAVE MORE VALUE SINGER: WORSE

20. STEP 9: THE RETARDED ORPHAN TEST “As long as we remember that we should give the same respect to the lives of animals as we give to the lives of those humans at a similar mental level, we shall not go wrong.” (p. 285)

21. STEP 10: IMPLICATIONS Vegetarianism Should rarely use animals in medical experiments Should stop using leather, etc. Should avoid zoos, circuses, aquariums, rodeos These implications and many others are worked out in ANIMAL LIBERATION.

22. Lifeboat Problems (Singer’s analysis)

23. Case 1: Thirsty Us (PAIN) Our class is on a lifeboat. Trip to shore takes 2 hours, our lives are not threatened. We’re painfully thirsty and have a limited supply of water. Singer says: when we distribute the water, we must avoid sexism and racism; we should apply principle of equality* * Principle of equality: equal interests should be given equal consideration (in other words, to each according to his/her interests)

24. Case 2: Thirsty Us + Dog (PAIN) Our class is on a lifeboat with a dog. Trip to shore takes 2 hours, our lives are not threatened. We’re painfully thirsty and have a limited supply of water. Singer: we must avoid sexism, racism and speciesism; we should apply principle of equality Dog’s pain matters as much as ours; should share water with dog * Principle of equality: equal interests should be given equal consideration (in other words, to each according to his/her interests)

25. Case 3: Endangered Us (LIFE AND DEATH) Our class is on a lifeboat. Our weight is excessive, we’re starting to sink. Someone must be thrown overboard or we’ll all die. Singer: must decide without sexism and racism; should apply principle of equality. * Principle of equality: equal interests should be given equal consideration (in other words, to each according to his/her interests)

26. Case 4: Endangered Us + Dog (LIFE AND DEATH) Our class is on a lifeboat with a dog. Our weight is excessive, we’re starting to sink. Someone must be thrown overboard or we’ll all die. Singer: must avoid sexism, racism, and speciesism; should apply principle of equality Singer: less good ahead in dog’s life; NOT speciesist to throw dog. * Principle of equality: equal interests should be given equal consideration (in other words, to each according to his/her interests)

27. Case 4: Endangered Us + Dog George is mentally comparable to the dog Not speciesist to throw dog IF you’re equally willing to throw George QUESTION: Is it speciesist to care more about George? Is it right to care more about George? * Principle of equality: equal interests should be given equal consideration (in other words, to each according to his/her interests)

28. Steinbock (A reply to Singer)

29. Why humans are special • Human beings can be held responsible for what they do • Human beings can reciprocate • Human beings desire self-respect

30. LIFE AND DEATH Case 4 – Endangered Us + Dog • Human lives matter more • Should throw dog overboard, speciesism is OK, not like racism or sexism • Singer AGREES about dog, but says “not speciesist”!

31. PAINCase 2 – Thirsty Us + Dog • Steinbock says human pain matters more • Why? Because pain interferes with exercise of capacities,and human have better capacities • Singer DISAGREES OSorry Fido, our thirst is a bigger problem than yours!

32. George • Same capacities as dog, so should we treat him like dog? • Steinbock—there are lots of legitimate reasons to care more about George (extra protectiveness for the dependent and impaired) George is mentally comparable to the dog We’ll take care of you, George!