Guest guest Posted January 1, 2002 Report Share Posted January 1, 2002 To begin with I’m actually specializing in environmental studies not philosophy (which I think in this day and age is vastly more important than debating for hours things that can’t be proven anyway) but most of my optional courses are in philosophy and ethics so I do know quite a bit about it. And I do admit I may have gotten a little carried away on that last e-mail with my new year’s eve plans going to hell and all… However I do agree with the gist of what I said… But I won’t claim to be an expert on the topic, I’m just giving my two cents. And as a fairly recent arrival on the list, I noticed you guys obviously make a distinction between animal rights and welfare. So if someone could just quickly clarify the difference that would be awesome. So basically my basic argument is that given our origins and the origins of life in general through Darwinian evolution it is clear that there isn’t an objective moral code written in the stars like Plato or Kant believed in. We must therefore design a moral code for ourselves on our own terms, and giving our wide range of beliefs I simply think that the only thing that unites us all is our quest for pleasure and our avoidance of pain. And I mean pleasure and pain in a very broad sense and not solely in its basic hedonistic nature. It’s actually better to use ‘interests’ rather than ‘pleasure’ as Peter Singer has done. The fact that each person’s idea of pleasure is different is irrelevant as long as the interests of each individual are acknowledged. Furthermore ethics is based on practice. If an ethical theory doesn’t work in practice it is useless. And I sincerely believe that a theory that claims that saving the lives of a billion individuals does not override the rights of a single individual is deeply flawed. Human beings are arrogant and conceited enough as it is, we shouldn’t begin to teach them that their right to live is more important than the combination of all other lives on this planet. We are not born with innate rights, we must earn these rights and from the point of view of the universe the interests of any individual should count for one and no more than one. And I still believe that utilitarianism is our best (maybe not our ONLY hope) for a better world. If all our laws were rewritten on a utilitarian principle our world we be so much better for it, as human, animal and environmental exploitation would be halted and a more just and equal world would surely be created. All for now, (And if there are any other utlitarianism lovers out there like myself, please help! it seems everyone on this list is against me!) Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2002 Report Share Posted January 1, 2002 Kamrinn Roy at kamrinn wrote: > So basically my basic argument is that given our > origins and the origins of life in general through > Darwinian evolution it is clear that there isn’t an > objective moral code written in the stars like Plato > or Kant believed in. Agreed. > We must therefore design a moral > code for ourselves on our own terms, and giving our > wide range of beliefs I simply think that the only > thing that unites us all is our quest for pleasure and > our avoidance of pain. That's fine, but utilitarianism is based on the greatest good for the greatest number (as I'm certain you know), and one of the biggest criticisms against it is that it makes no room for what is commonly regarded as justice, because some can suffer if others benefit from it enough to increase the utility (a common example is that slavery of a group could easily be justified under utilitarianism.) The same goes for nonhuman animals, and there are probably some papers about how animals don't deserve to be treated well under utilitarianism because they can provide more pleasure for humans than they can for themselves simply by existing. > And I mean pleasure and pain in > a very broad sense and not solely in its basic > hedonistic nature. It’s actually better to use > ‘interests’ rather than ‘pleasure’ as Peter Singer has > done. The fact that each person’s idea of pleasure is > different is irrelevant as long as the interests of > each individual are acknowledged. Do you take a paternalistic view on this, or is everyone's opinion about what their interests are equally valid? > Furthermore ethics is based on practice. If an ethical > theory doesn’t work in practice it is useless. And I > sincerely believe that a theory that claims that > saving the lives of a billion individuals does not > override the rights of a single individual is deeply > flawed. I agree.. there's that example that Bernard Williams used in his critique of utilitarianism of " Jim and the Indians " where one must choose to kill one (with no reprocussions from outside the self) to save many (from being killed by someone else), including the one.. I was really surprised at how many of my classmates (when we dicussed this in my ethics course) said that they wouldn't choose to kill the one.. I would feel that, knowing that those are the only two options, I would certainly kill one to save several, and would feel rather bad about it if I didn't (I may be a nihilist, but I do have both preferences and am subject to socialization.) However, I don't think that utilitarianism necessarily does work in practice.. I am currently writing a paper criticising John Rawls' theory of justice, but he actually does a fairly good job of compromising between Kantian deontology and utilitarianism, both of which many people find to be counter-intuitive and unrealistic (as much as I was shocked by what happened in the above paragraph, it does show how many people feel in a, say, " morally intuitive " [to borrow from Ross] way). -james. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2002 Report Share Posted January 3, 2002 > I noticed you guys obviously make > a distinction between animal rights and welfare. So if > someone could just quickly clarify the difference that > would be awesome. hmmm..wish i had a link handy for this. Basically, animal welfare deals with making the animal comfortable, less suffering for the animals. Free-range chicken farms would be an example of welfarism. Sometimes it actually leads to animal liberation, but more often than not, it is a step backwards from animal rights. AR in a nutshell is recognizing that every animal has the right to live their life free, unhampered by humans. This includes clothing, entertainment, experimentation as well as food. Animal liberation is the final goal of AR. There is no clear goal with welfarism. Got bigger cages for chickens? Okay, make 'em a little bigger now...etc.. Welfarism frequently hurts AR/liberation because it gives people a false send of goodness (people actually think McDonald's is somehow 'okay' or 'better' than say 'Dennys' because PETA stopped protesting them, a classic welfar example.) It doesn't do the animals any good. A chicken born with 76 inches of space has no idea that life is so much 'better' for her than her parent, who only had 66 inches. All she knows is that she's trapped in a shithole and is very uncomfortable. Let me know if you have any questions.. > And I > sincerely believe that a theory that claims that > saving the lives of a billion individuals does not > override the rights of a single individual is deeply > flawed. How so? How do you really justify that one death? What if it's two deaths to save billions? Ten? A hundred? Millions? When does the killing become wrong or unjustified? I will maintain that one death is that point. > All for now, (And if there are any other utlitarianism > lovers out there like myself, please help! it seems > everyone on this list is against me!) I'm not against you Kamrinn - you seem like an interesting person who's trying to find a peaceful practice in their life. I have absolutely nothing against you!! (And from what i can see, no one else here does either..maybe you're getting nasty private messages?) I'm just trying to explain to you that the philosophy you've chosen may not be what you hope it is. - Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2002 Report Share Posted January 5, 2002 > ---------- > Dave Shishkoff[sMTP:dave] > > When does the killing become wrong or unjustified? > > I will maintain that one death is that point. > I know nothing about philosophy. My contention on this point is that the one death stops being acceptable when it's the death of someone you love. I'm with you on this one. Cathy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2002 Report Share Posted January 6, 2002 > > Dave Shishkoff[sMTP:dave] > > > > When does the killing become wrong or unjustified? > > > > I will maintain that one death is that point. > > > I know nothing about philosophy. My contention on this point is that the > one death stops being acceptable when it's the death of someone you love. > I'm with you on this one. Hey Cathy, why even wait until it's someone you love? How about a friend, or a friend of a friend.. Thanks for your support! No disrespect to Cathy, but what happened to everyone? I thought this was just starting to get interesting!! Does that mean i won? hahahah - Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.