Animal Liberation - Term Paper Example

Part A TRUE 2. TRUE 3. TRUE 4. TRUE 5. TRUE 6. TRUE Part B Prompt Singer argues that animals have equal rights with men as they are a species that has life. According to Singer there should be some concern for the wellbeing of animals in a moral society. Therefore, animals should not be exploited through experimentation, as food or as clothing. Peter singer presents a utilitarian argument for animal rights in his work; the Animal Liberation. Singer argues that all “animals are equal” and humans are not superior to other animal species. He further argues that all animals posses sentience, and therefore animals should be treated the same way as humans regarding any morally relevant interest. Singer equates treating animals lesser than human beings to other forms of discrimination like racism and ethnicity. Furthermore, Singer equates animals with human beings who have irreversible brain damage. The utilitarian views of Singer are opposed and refuted by Cohen. Cohen argues that rights can only be restricted to moral agents. To refute Singer’s argument that animals have equal rights to humans, Cohen proposes a definition of rights as claims. A right according to Cohen is a claim made against somebody else. Cohen further argues that an obligation to ensure animal welfare cannot constitute a right. To prove this Cohen clearly shows that rights entail obligation but obligation cannot entail rights. However, Cohen’s fails to show how humans without the ability to claim their rights can enjoy rights. These groups of humans include human infants and mentally handicapped persons. Cohen’s speciesist theory failure to explain how humans without the capacity to claim rights can enjoy moral rights assists Utilitarianism answer his criticism for their explanation of animal rights. Prompt 2 The starting point for answering the question “Is there such thing as a moral saint?” always starts with an attempt to define the term. This is occasioned by the fact that any author who attempts to tackle the controversial question must have a standard of morality that the supposed “moral saint” satisfies. This approach is reflected in Wolf who starts his work by giving a brief description of what the moral saint is supposed to be. Wolf defines a moral saint as a person who strives to be as good as possible everyday and in every situation. Similarly, Carbonell in his work article Moral Saint Reconsidered also starts his exploration of the issue with a description of the term moral saint. According to Carbonell, moral saints are individuals whose conduct goes beyond the obligation of morality. She also describes moral saints as resolute and tenacious people, who are ready to make great human sacrifice. Carbonell concentrates on supererogatory actions that are beyond the call of morality as the main conduct that qualifies a person to be defined as a moral saint. Dr. Paul Farmer would not qualify as a moral saint under the standard set by Wolf in his definition of a Moral saint. According to Wolf a moral saint ignores common non-moral activities and takes a resigned and pessimistic attitude of vices and flaws in morality. In contrast, Dr. Paul Farmer is not moral in all situations as exemplified by his conduct of stealing drugs from an American hospital to aid in the treatment of diarrhea stricken Haitians. The fact that Paul Farmer cannot be considered a moral saint under Wolf’s definition points to the difficult those authors face in defining the term moral saint. Thus, it cannot be taken as a weakness in Wolf’s argument in trying to answer the question “Is there such thing as a moral saint?” Prompt 3 Moral luck can be defined as a situation whereby moral responsibility is assigned to a moral agent for action or consequence that they do not have full control over. According to Williams, luck influences the life of humans in countless way. Luck determines whether a person will be happy or successful in life. However, luck should not play any role in the moral responsibility of a person. If moral luck does exist it would mean individual human beings are held to different standards of morality. In turn people will make moral judgments based on these varying standards of morality. With varying standards of moral responsibility will be lowered and will moral value will cease to be the supreme sort of value. Nagel identifies four types of moral luck: Resultant, causal, constitutive and causal moral luck. Resultant moral luck is concerned with actions and situations and their associated consequences. Circumstantial moral luck is concerned with the moral surroundings of a person. Nagel gives the example of German soldiers during the Nazi period who committed inhuman act, but supposes they would have acted differently if they were directed by less brutal employers. It follows if a person is in a favorable or a hostile moral environment, the amount of moral blame assigned to them is dependent on the moral circumstances. According to Nagel, another type of moral luck is defined as constitutive moral luck. It is concerned with uncontrollable influences that shape a person’s life. These influences include: genes, upbringing and education. A person is not supposed to be assigned moral blame for actions that depend on these uncontrollable influences. Finally, Causal moral luck is defined as situation where a person does not possess the free will to take a moral decision. Causal moral luck seeks to explain the external consequences of events that affect a person’s moral action. Part C In the current system of morality, nothing is absolutely moral and instances where moral luck or blame cannot be assigned are very common. I would find Kant theory of morality sounder than those of other philosophers. Kant calls for the separation of happiness and morality that tend to be compounded on many occasions. According to Kant, if happiness is associated with morality this leaves happiness to contingent circumstances as in the four types of moral luck defined by Nagel. Kant’s view tend to refute the argument of singer that enable should enjoy equal rights to humans as it would bring them the greatest happiness. It also differs greatly with Aristotle’s view that happiness is the most pleasant thing and the highest good if it comes through moral conduct. However, both Kant and Aristotle agree that it is not moral to seek happiness through pleasure seeking motives. In conclusion, its possible to have moral saints but not under the strict definition of Wolf, which makes morality an unattractive ideal. Under Kant’s theory animals cannot have rights as the consideration of the animal’s happiness would not constitute a moral obligation. However, it remains important to strive to hold moral standards under one objective standard to make sure morality remains the supreme sort of value Works Cited Carbonell, Vanessa. Moral Saints Reconsidered: diss. The University of Michigan. University of Michigan Publishin 2009 Cohen, Carl. “Do Animals Have Rights?,” Ethics and Behavior. 7.2 (1997): 91-102. Kant, Immanuel. (2002). Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Allen Wood, trans. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002. Nagel, T. “Moral Luck.” Moral Luck. Daniel Statman (Ed.). State, Albany, New York: University of New York Press.1993. pp. 57-71. Nagel, Thomas. "Moral Luck." Mortal Questions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. pp. 24–38. Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals. New York: Random House, 1975. Williams, B. “Moral Luck.” Moral Luck. Daniel Statman (Ed.). Albany, New York: State University of New York Press. 1993. pp. 35-55 Wolf, Susan. Moral Saints. The Journal of Philosophy. 19.8 1982, 419-439. Read More