ETHICS WEEK 7: PLURALISM AND PARTICULARISM
When it comes to the issue of animals, there are two significant issues regarding it.
Do non-human animals have moral status?
- Marginal cases argument
- PREMISE 1: If we have moral status and they (non-human animals) do not, then
there must be some feature that each of us has and that none of them have that
explains this.
- We have to find the characteristics (F) which makes this difference.
- PREMISE 2: there is no such feature.
- There is no such specific feature which humans have while non-humans don’t.
- It’s difficult to find a characteristic which is both universal and exclusive to
humans
- PREMISE 3: we all have moral status
- CONCLUSION: they have moral status too.
- Marginal case argument which is basically the principle of sufficient difference.
- Regarding animal rights: change moral status to moral rights
The second issue is the principle of sufficient difference.
- Whenever there is a moral difference, something they have and we lack, there
must be a feature which explains this.
- Doing good things for moral status is not the same as doing good things
inherently.
The relevance of control and power
- Principle of sufficient difference is applied again on moral acts
- E.g. ordering a veggie burger consciously but getting some bacon on it. Do you
eat the bacon or not?
- It’s already prepared and the act of eating it won’t save any other animals but in
fact will prevent that death of animal from being a waste.
- For some theories, the fundamental truths of morality can be really simply.
Principle of utility, deontology.
Kant and Mill
- FMP according to Mill: act is right iff it promotes the greatest happiness for the
greatest number (of sentient creatures) – hedonic value, consequence focus
- FMP according to Kant: categorical imperative: act only on maxims if it can be
universalised, and do not use people as a means to an end – the Good Will, type of
actions matter more and internal motives matter
- COMMON DENOMINATOR: both believe in the existence in the FMP-monoism
- DW ROSS: what if there are two things that mattered? Pluralism
When it comes to the issue of animals, there are two significant issues regarding it.
Do non-human animals have moral status?
- Marginal cases argument
- PREMISE 1: If we have moral status and they (non-human animals) do not, then
there must be some feature that each of us has and that none of them have that
explains this.
- We have to find the characteristics (F) which makes this difference.
- PREMISE 2: there is no such feature.
- There is no such specific feature which humans have while non-humans don’t.
- It’s difficult to find a characteristic which is both universal and exclusive to
humans
- PREMISE 3: we all have moral status
- CONCLUSION: they have moral status too.
- Marginal case argument which is basically the principle of sufficient difference.
- Regarding animal rights: change moral status to moral rights
The second issue is the principle of sufficient difference.
- Whenever there is a moral difference, something they have and we lack, there
must be a feature which explains this.
- Doing good things for moral status is not the same as doing good things
inherently.
The relevance of control and power
- Principle of sufficient difference is applied again on moral acts
- E.g. ordering a veggie burger consciously but getting some bacon on it. Do you
eat the bacon or not?
- It’s already prepared and the act of eating it won’t save any other animals but in
fact will prevent that death of animal from being a waste.
- For some theories, the fundamental truths of morality can be really simply.
Principle of utility, deontology.
Kant and Mill
- FMP according to Mill: act is right iff it promotes the greatest happiness for the
greatest number (of sentient creatures) – hedonic value, consequence focus
- FMP according to Kant: categorical imperative: act only on maxims if it can be
universalised, and do not use people as a means to an end – the Good Will, type of
actions matter more and internal motives matter
- COMMON DENOMINATOR: both believe in the existence in the FMP-monoism
- DW ROSS: what if there are two things that mattered? Pluralism
