Philosopher views
INTERPRETATIONS OF SINGER’S CRITERIA
Download 5.81 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- SINGER AND BIOCENTRISM
- “THE GOOD OF THE ANIMAL”
- PRACTICAL ETHICS
INTERPRETATIONS OF SINGER’S CRITERIAWhile Singer does frequently make reference to the fact that most proposed criterion would include some animals but exclude infants and those with mental defects; interpretations of these references is varied and controversial. Critics of Singer say that his criteria for declaring someone a person are “rationality and self awareness over time.”10 This leads many beings to not get classified as persons, and therefore be seen as unworthy of equality. This would include brain-damaged people, those with significant mental retardation, those with some forms of psychosis, human embryos, human fetuses, chickens, and fish. However, many animals, like dogs and bears, would be considered persons. Here Singer enters territory that offends many and has helped to create a feeling of hatred towards him. In Practical Ethics, Singer writes, “"When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of the happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if the killing of the hemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others it would . . . be right to kill him." 11 While many people disagree with Singer’s position, few are able to articulate a standard that includes all types of humanity and excludes all non-human animals. SINGER AND BIOCENTRISMHolmes Rolston III and some green philosophers argue that Singer’s position is detrimental to biocentrism, and more specifically, to plants. Rolston concedes that our views regarding ethics prior to Singer were too humanist, too focused on people. He also explains, however, that “Singer has proven himself blind to the still larger effort in environmental ethics to value life at all its ranges and levels, indeed to care for a biospheric Earth.”12 The implications of this view outlined by Rolston are those of an anthropocentric society. Singer argues that you would conduct environmental policy with regards to the interest of those who are granted the status of person. Since those persons depend on the environment, policy decisions would be made to protect the environment in the interest of persons. However, an environmental ethic that is based on human needs does not often differ in policy recommendations from an environmental ethic based on the biosphere as its center. Singer questions this criticism by pondering how we assign value if not based on sentience. Rolston says value comes from having a respect for life. He supports his idea with the thoughts of Paul Taylor, who details that every living organism has a will to live; and that even plants are pursuing their own good. Singer dismantles this position by noting that a plant doesn’t have a choice as to whether or not it grows toward the light for its own interest, rather it is just what the plant does and cannot be anything else. Singer goes on to add that by the logic of those who advocate looking to plant’s interests; the good of a missile is to blow up and should be considered, and a river is seeking its own good to reach the sea. 13 “THE GOOD OF THE ANIMAL”Some have argued (and attempted to use Singer’s utilitarian framework to do so) that raising animals to eat is not causing them to suffer. This position is initially weakened by the fact that it ignores the entire premise that killing animals in any way could be simply wrong. However, engaging the argument still yields some debate. From a utilitarian perspective, in order for an action against an animal to be wrong, it must cause suffering; that is, whether is causes more benefit than harm. The question then becomes, does raising animals for food cause more benefit than harm? R.M. Hare takes the position that it is not. He says, “For it is better for an animal to live a happy life, even if it is a short one, than no life at all.” 14 Singer answers this claim on several levels. First, he notes that mere existence is not in itself a benefit. The creature would be allowed to live without human interference, so breeding a new existence is not some sort of net gain for the animal. Second, even if the benefit that this existence creates is good, the absence of a benefit is not harm. We cannot compare what an animal would have in nature to what they would have in a farm. Most importantly, however, Singer notes that the way animal production works within the system does not take into account animal suffering. The confinement that these animals endure, the disease and filthy living conditions, the painful ways in which they are killed; all suggest a lack of concern for the animals. Singer argues that allowing death is as bad as causing death. If humans simply took advantage of the fact that animals died, it would still not justify the use of the creatures as a means to an end. The implications of the distinction between causing a death and allowing a death carry over from the realm of non-human animals into the world of humanity as well. Here, Singer discusses the ideas of our responsibility in world famine. Singer claims that proximity, or the distance between an individual and a famine, is no justification for a lack of action. Complacently allowing death to happen is just as morally and ethically wrong as dong the killing yourself. PRACTICAL ETHICSThe philosophy of Singer is based on the idea of practical ethics. He first alludes to the notion that philosophy and ethics should entail action in the introduction to a book that developed from his thesis project at Oxford. In Democracy and Disobedience, Singer explains how philosophy should be accessible to everyone by noting, “As the subject of this book is one that concerns not only those studying or teaching political philosophy in universities but also any citizens, especially citizens of a democracy, who find themselves faced with a law they oppose, I have tried to write throughout to write in a way that can easily be understood by those who have never studied philosophy.” 15 Singer’s view of accessibility extends to the way people use philosophy. Practical ethics have three primary characteristics. The first is that it is revisionary; that is, its purpose is to not merely explain the world and the way it works, but to change it. The second is that in Singer’s work, facts matter. An understanding of the way things are is necessary to determine the way things should be, the way we should strive to make things. A third is that there is an assumption that individual action can make a difference. This is why Singer discusses action as well as right and wrong, why he tries to make his work easy to read and applicable to individuals. 16 Singer feels that a discussion of an argument, an understanding of a position, is irrelevant and uninteresting unless it calls for an action in a way that individuals can have power. This perception that philosophy is not just for the academically inclined and is not to be merely kept in books and the classroom helps to distinguish Singer from not only his contemporaries but philosophers throughout history. Many philosophers and their positions seem to invite action, but few have gone so far as Singer in making it a primary goal explicitly explained to his readers and audiences. Directory: uploads uploads -> 587 Return function, r i(X) r i(0) r i(1) r i(2) r i(3) 1 0 2 4 6 Thermal Station, I 2 0 1 5 6 3 0 3 5 6 10 uploads -> Department of science and humanities department of mathematics part-a questions and answers uploads -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? uploads -> For want of a nail uploads -> Ownership Models There are two different types of ownership models uploads -> Police Militarization uploads -> City of rising star regular meting thursday, july 14, 2016 uploads -> Township of winfield uploads -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 uploads -> The Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Program What We Want Now! Download 5.81 Mb. Share with your friends:
|