AGENDA
- Reporting meetings
- Palmer's view
_________________________
Summary of ideas in first part of Clare Palmer's article
_________________________
Palmer's View
Our conflicting attitudes
Attitudes toward wildebeest (it's plural!) crossing the Mara river.
Attitudes towards pets in a natural disaster. Hurricanes, fires.
Palmer's proposal
 |
| NBC news |
_________________________
Palmer asks: is it justifiable to have these very different attitudes? Does it make sense?
Utilitarianism
- General obligations (to all sentient animals)
- based on their nature, they do have moral status
- examples: shouldn't harm gratuitously, shouldn't kill for no good reason
- Special obligations (just to specific animals)
- based on history, context, relationships
- you took responsibility for an animal
- you are responsible for an animal's problems
- protecting, assisting, saving...are special obligations
- two animals can have the same moral status, yet we can have different obligations to protect, assist, save
_________________________
Applications of Palmer's view:
- Obligatory
- Merely permissible (not obligatory, not wrong)
- Wrong
- Obligatory
- Merely permissible (not obligatory, not wrong)
- Wrong
Killing Marius
_________________________
Next part of Palmer's argument
So far it looks like she's saying we have have limited obligations to wild animals
- Wild animals and their problems are not our responsibility, so we don't have to help with....
- predation
- infant mortality
- natural disasters
- accidents
- BUT, due to anthropogenic (human-caused) problems for animals, of their problems ARE our responsibility
Palmer's main example: Climate change
human behavior --> hotter, drier climate --> more wildfires --> wild animals injured by wildfires
 |
| how the LA wildfires are affecting wildlife and pets |
human behavior --> warmer weather in arctic --> less sea ice --> problems for polar bears, seals, walruses
