Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Every Thing Else Board
Views...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="IluvABbeef" data-source="post: 290742" data-attributes="member: 3739"><p>I found some interesting things on different views in today's society dealing with things like ethics in the way we veiw animals as a part of us. Most of this stuff I'm actually learning about in school, BTW.</p><p></p><p>So just for the heck of it, I thought I would post a bit of it:</p><p></p><p><strong>Utilitarianism view:</strong></p><p>• Animals in agriculture may suffer and lack the ability to do things to contribute to their "positive welfare". </p><p>• The cost to consumers (in western society) of improving farm animals' welfare is less than the cost to the animals (in terms of suffering) of not improving it. </p><p>• Utilitarianism would then say changes should be made… </p><p>• Singer (Peter Singer (1946 - ), Professor at Princeton University, USA) proposes going all the way – vegetarianism, as the "cost" of this to humans is less than the "cost" to animals of us not doing it.</p><p>• The interest of the animal in going on living may be outweighed by conflicting interests, such as the interests of the future animal that will replace it, and human interests in animal production. </p><p>• So if the animal's life is completely humane and killing is painless, then use may be ok. </p><p>• Animal experiments vital to human medicine may be morally acceptable if benefits outweigh costs in animal suffering or discomfort.</p><p><strong>Problems with this view of "pure" utilitarianism:</strong></p><p>• Does not respect the moral value of each individual (human or animal). </p><p>• Is killing of humans ok, as long as there is no pain and if person is replaced by another?</p><p>• What about experimentation on people? Is this ok? </p><p>• Benefits to the many would outweigh the cost to the few…</p><p></p><p><strong>Animal Rights (Tom Regan)</strong></p><p>• We cannot justify good results by using "evil" means that violate an individual's rights.</p><p>• An Animal is the "subject of a life", a "conscious creature". </p><p>• Unlike the utilitarian view, under the Animal Rights View it is never justified to sacrifice the rights of one individual to benefit another.</p><p>• Under this view, it is our duty to protect the right of each individual not to be killed nor deprived of the means necessary to live a good life.</p><p><strong>Problems with Rights View?</strong></p><p>• How do we handle cases where it is not possible to respect the rights of all individuals?</p><p>• What if interests conflict or are mutually exclusive?</p><p>• In our society, we frequently waive our rights for the benefit of others – for example, parents forego many "rights" to give their children a better life.</p><p>• If as Regan says, defense of self is the only proviso, where do we draw the line?</p><p>• How do we define "defense"? </p><p>• Is experimentation on animals to cure human disease "defense"?</p><p></p><p>These are the "primary" views, along with a few others...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="IluvABbeef, post: 290742, member: 3739"] I found some interesting things on different views in today's society dealing with things like ethics in the way we veiw animals as a part of us. Most of this stuff I'm actually learning about in school, BTW. So just for the heck of it, I thought I would post a bit of it: [b]Utilitarianism view:[/b] • Animals in agriculture may suffer and lack the ability to do things to contribute to their “positive welfare”. • The cost to consumers (in western society) of improving farm animals’ welfare is less than the cost to the animals (in terms of suffering) of not improving it. • Utilitarianism would then say changes should be made… • Singer (Peter Singer (1946 - ), Professor at Princeton University, USA) proposes going all the way – vegetarianism, as the “cost” of this to humans is less than the “cost” to animals of us not doing it. • The interest of the animal in going on living may be outweighed by conflicting interests, such as the interests of the future animal that will replace it, and human interests in animal production. • So if the animal’s life is completely humane and killing is painless, then use may be ok. • Animal experiments vital to human medicine may be morally acceptable if benefits outweigh costs in animal suffering or discomfort. [b]Problems with this view of "pure" utilitarianism:[/b] • Does not respect the moral value of each individual (human or animal). • Is killing of humans ok, as long as there is no pain and if person is replaced by another? • What about experimentation on people? Is this ok? • Benefits to the many would outweigh the cost to the few… [b]Animal Rights (Tom Regan)[/b] • We cannot justify good results by using “evil” means that violate an individual’s rights. • An Animal is the “subject of a life”, a “conscious creature”. • Unlike the utilitarian view, under the Animal Rights View it is never justified to sacrifice the rights of one individual to benefit another. • Under this view, it is our duty to protect the right of each individual not to be killed nor deprived of the means necessary to live a good life. [b]Problems with Rights View?[/b] • How do we handle cases where it is not possible to respect the rights of all individuals? • What if interests conflict or are mutually exclusive? • In our society, we frequently waive our rights for the benefit of others – for example, parents forego many “rights” to give their children a better life. • If as Regan says, defense of self is the only proviso, where do we draw the line? • How do we define “defense”? • Is experimentation on animals to cure human disease “defense”? These are the "primary" views, along with a few others... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Every Thing Else Board
Views...
Top