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: 290749" data-attributes="member: 3739"><p>Here's some more "lesser known" veiws I've been exposed to in school:</p><p></p><p><strong>Species-Integrity View</strong></p><p>• Not only individuals, but also species must be valued. </p><p>• Drastic change of the nature of a species (telos) through breeding is unethical.</p><p>• Extinction of a species is wrong.</p><p>• Changing the nature (telos) of a species by transgenics is wrong.</p><p><strong>Problems with this view?</strong></p><p>• Why is the current state of genetic structures "special"? </p><p>• Genetic change through mutation, and natural and artificial (breeding) selection is constant and continuous. </p><p>• Breeding for increased health is generally thought to be a good thing – how does this fit in?</p><p>• How does this benefit individual animals?</p><p></p><p><strong>Agent-Centered View</strong></p><p>• "What is important about our treatment of animals is what it does to us as moral agents."</p><p>• We have duties to animals because if we are cruel to animals we are more likely to act wrongfully to humans.</p><p>• We should demonstrate care for others, including concern for their pain or suffering…</p><p>• Causing suffering to animals demonstrates a flaw of character – "lack of care" – in the person involved. (Kant)</p><p>• This view makes room for moral distinctions that play a role in "common sense" ethics – for example: drawing a distinction between pet animals and food animals or pests</p><p><strong>Problems with this view?</strong></p><p>• Conservative and too easy to justify what we do, particularly if the practice is "traditional".</p><p>• Vague: hard to define what is ok and what is not. </p><p>• E.g. "Why is experimentation on mice cruel and pest control not cruel?" </p><p>• Conflicts between virtues can be difficult. </p><p>• E.g.: My desire to end human suffering due to disease allows me to perform experimentation that causes animal suffering.</p><p></p><p><strong>Hybrid Views</strong></p><p>• Distinct from any of above views, but combine parts of two or more of them. </p><p>• E.g.: combine utilitarianism with animal rights: certain things one cannot do to animals under any circumstances (those things that "violate" a specified "right"), but as long as we avoid those things, we can cause animals mild distress or inconvenience or even kill animals if sufficiently good results (to humans or other animals) follow. </p><p><strong>Problems with Hybrid Views</strong></p><p>• Difficult Ethical questions follow: If we can invoke utilitarianism to do these things to animals, why can we not do the same to people under similar circumstances. (hypothetically – experimentation on or killing of mentally handicapped humans!) </p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay, just a side note on this. I personally DO NOT agree with most of the views of what I just posted, as a matter of fact I think some of those who have those sort of views are completely off their rockers (in other words, bullsh**ers .. like animal rights, and hybrid, to name a few). Some of these points are enough to get me on a rampage and start ranting like a madwoman, and I don't wanna start now. </p><p>I also understand where a lot of you stand in these type of views (and I wouldn't be surprised if you don't agree with alot of them either). I don't mean to offend anybody with this material, and if I have, sorry. But I just thought that you folks would have comments or the like on this...enough blabbering from me, you get the idea.</p><p></p><p>ps. sorry for it ending up to be a bit long...both posts...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="IluvABbeef, post: 290749, member: 3739"] Here's some more "lesser known" veiws I've been exposed to in school: [b]Species-Integrity View[/b] • Not only individuals, but also species must be valued. • Drastic change of the nature of a species (telos) through breeding is unethical. • Extinction of a species is wrong. • Changing the nature (telos) of a species by transgenics is wrong. [b]Problems with this view?[/b] • Why is the current state of genetic structures “special”? • Genetic change through mutation, and natural and artificial (breeding) selection is constant and continuous. • Breeding for increased health is generally thought to be a good thing – how does this fit in? • How does this benefit individual animals? [b]Agent-Centered View[/b] • “What is important about our treatment of animals is what it does to us as moral agents.” • We have duties to animals because if we are cruel to animals we are more likely to act wrongfully to humans. • We should demonstrate care for others, including concern for their pain or suffering… • Causing suffering to animals demonstrates a flaw of character – “lack of care” – in the person involved. (Kant) • This view makes room for moral distinctions that play a role in “common sense” ethics – for example: drawing a distinction between pet animals and food animals or pests [b]Problems with this view?[/b] • Conservative and too easy to justify what we do, particularly if the practice is “traditional”. • Vague: hard to define what is ok and what is not. • E.g. “Why is experimentation on mice cruel and pest control not cruel?” • Conflicts between virtues can be difficult. • E.g.: My desire to end human suffering due to disease allows me to perform experimentation that causes animal suffering. [b]Hybrid Views[/b] • Distinct from any of above views, but combine parts of two or more of them. • E.g.: combine utilitarianism with animal rights: certain things one cannot do to animals under any circumstances (those things that “violate” a specified “right”), but as long as we avoid those things, we can cause animals mild distress or inconvenience or even kill animals if sufficiently good results (to humans or other animals) follow. [b]Problems with Hybrid Views[/b] • Difficult Ethical questions follow: If we can invoke utilitarianism to do these things to animals, why can we not do the same to people under similar circumstances. (hypothetically – experimentation on or killing of mentally handicapped humans!) Okay, just a side note on this. I personally DO NOT agree with most of the views of what I just posted, as a matter of fact I think some of those who have those sort of views are completely off their rockers (in other words, bullsh**ers .. like animal rights, and hybrid, to name a few). Some of these points are enough to get me on a rampage and start ranting like a madwoman, and I don't wanna start now. I also understand where a lot of you stand in these type of views (and I wouldn't be surprised if you don't agree with alot of them either). I don't mean to offend anybody with this material, and if I have, sorry. But I just thought that you folks would have comments or the like on this...enough blabbering from me, you get the idea. ps. sorry for it ending up to be a bit long...both posts... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Every Thing Else Board
Views...
Top