MODULE 1: Animals (continued)

 AGENDA

1. Reporting meetings
2. Palmer's view

_________________________

Summary of ideas in first part of Clare Palmer's article

_________________________

Palmer's View "Animal Ethics"  (annotated)

Our conflicting attitudes

Attitudes toward wildebeest (it's plural!) crossing the Mara river.    

Attitudes towards pets in a natural disaster.   Hurricanes, fires.

NBC news

_________________________

Palmer asks: is it justifiable  to have these very different attitudes? Does it make sense?

Utilitarianism

Palmer's proposal

1. 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
2. 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:

Assisting wildebeest crossing Mara river (choose one)

1. Obligatory
2. Merely permissible (not obligatory, not wrong)
3. Wrong

Assisting pets harmed by the California fires (choose one)

1. Obligatory
2. Merely permissible (not obligatory, not wrong)
3. 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

1. Wild animals and their problems are not our responsibility, so we don't have to help with....
• predation
• infant mortality
• natural disasters
• accidents
2. 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 

 

Hope for polar bears?

MODULE 1: Animals

Agenda this week

1. Monday: moral status of animals + discuss reports
2. Wednesday: moral status of animals + discuss reports
3. Friday: moral status of plants

_________________________

Reports

Reporting document

Canvas topic choice assignment

_________________________

MODULE 1: When making environmental decisions, what has moral status?

View (1) Anthropocentrism (Baxter)

just people have moral status; we should be concerned with other beings only to the extent that they affect or matter to people

View (2) "Animals matter too" -- they have moral status as individuals

• not just as specimens of species
• not just as contributors to ecosystems
• we have obligations to individual animals
• they have value as individuals
• at least some animals

Environmental questions involving animals

1. New drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--does the impact on caribou matter (directly)
2. Wind turbines--does the impact on birds matter (directly)?
3. Culling buffalos in Yellowstone--does the death of each buffalo matter (directly)?
4. Using pesticides like DDT -- does harm to penguins, fish, even mosquitos matter (directly)?

POLL -- is your gut feeling yes or no?

_________________________

Clare Palmer, "Animal Ethics"  (annotated)

The Marius question -- a puzzle about painless killing

Warning: pretty gruesome

 

The vet explains himself in a TED talk

Public reaction

Two very different defenses

1. Animals don't matter as individuals, but only as species, and the zoo is protecting the species
2. Captive animals are better off being able to breed, even if the surplus has to be killed

_________________________

Animals DO matter as individuals --  why? which?

Utilitarianism (Peter Singer)

• utilitarians think the prime ethical directive is: maximize total happiness
• who has moral status? all sentient beings
• sentience = the capacity for pain, pleasure, and other positive and negative experiences
• other capacities may matter but only indirectly 
• must do cost-benefit analysis
• The Marius question -- if it's painless killing is it OK?
• The environmental questions

Rights view (Tom Regan)

• all beings who are "subjects of a life" have basic rights--right to life, right to liberty, right not to be tortured
• doesn't matter if they're less intelligent (so are babies)
• no need for cost-benefit analysis
• Apply to Marius

Hierarchical view (Gary Varner) 

• persons (us), near persons (higher animals), merely sentient
• they all have moral status (doesn't come in degrees)\
• But they have varying degrees of moral significance
• We owe more to higher animals
• Apply to Marius

Humane traditionalism (not discussed by Palmer)

• No animal has anything like human moral status
• But we have certain obligations to animals (if sentient)
• No pointless killing, no torture
• Thoughts about Marius?

_________________________

Context view (Clare Palmer)--next time