If abusing animal rights brings general pleasure, it is morally justifiable
Singer: all sentient beings have an interest in avoiding pain; no ethical justification for abuse; infliction of pain is wrong rather than killing them therefore painless death in good conditions is acceptable
Bentham: "The question is not can they reason? Nor, can they talk? But can they suffer?"
1 of 3
Kantian Ethics and Animal Rights (12)
Animals aren't rational therefore can be treated as means to end
Not morally wrong but it can lead to harshness of character (cruelty to humans)
Kant: "For he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men"
Regan: Inherent worth in subject of life; exploiting them is to use them as means to end; animals as living beings have inalienable right to life
2 of 3
Virtue Ethics and Animal Rights (12)
Classical: eudaimonia restricted to interactions with other humans
Modern: someone who treats animals badly unlikely to flourish/likely to have multiple vices; treating animals well shows virtues i.e. Generosity
CRITICISM
Behaviour only shows character not moral choices
RESPONSE
Kindess shows virtues; being vegan/vegetarian shows virtues i.e. temperance/magnanimousness; to be cruel to animals we are emotionally attached to is essentially to be cruel to family members
Comments
No comments have yet been made