Killing other

1
animals
Week 8
2 Utilitarianism and
replacibility
Specialness of persons:
Critique: Utilitarianism treats life as relatively
unimportant
But: Singer argued that the lives of persons
were special
Persons have a much greater interest in
being alive than non-personal animals
Reason: Complex historical aspect of
persons' preferences
Unclear: Why can you not replace the life of
one person with the life of another?
3 Utilitarianism and
replacibility
Replaceability:
That the value of a human life lost can be replaced by
bringing another being into existence (provided the
new being experiences similar levels of happiness,
etc.)
Intuitively, the lives of persons are not replaceable.
How do we explain this from a utilitarian point of view?
4 Counting utility

A utilitarian is committed to maximizing utility

Two accounts of maximizing: total view and
average view

Total view: Make the total amount of utility, in

the
total history of the cosmos, the largest it can
possibly be.

Average view: Make the average amount of

utility
per living creature as high as it can be.
5 Quiz

Total view:
Two scenarios, which is better, according to total view?
[a.] 1,000 lives. Average amount of utility per life is 5 units.
[b.] 100 lives. Average amount of utility per life is 50 units.
[c.] The two are equally good.

Average view:
Once we have done all we can to make people happier, is
there anything else we can do to lift the average
happiness?
6 Prior existence

Consider only the lives that already exist, plus

those that are bound to come about
independently
of what I do. Maximize the utility in those lives.

1. Suggests that, other things being equal,

taking life is a bad thing, because it means
losing a container for utility.
2. Fits better with our attitude towards
conception.
7 Prior existence and persons

Difficult part of Singers book (pp. 12431)

Argument that we should use the prior existence
view for persons and the total view for non-
persons
Persons can have preferences about
themselves in some meaningful sense
These preferences cannot be replaced by
some other being coming to form a
preference for the same thing, and getting it.
The first preference remains unsatisfied
The preferences of a non-person, however,
are more like: food here now!
There is nothing essentially about the
preference-bearer in the preference. Hence
it can be replaced
8 Are animals persons?

Singer (110-117) says yes and no

There is evidence that animals have self-
consciousness
Admittedly a lot of dispute about this
Therefore normal human lives and some
animal lives are not replaceable
But for most animals, replaceability is
normal
Singers argument on prior existence
demonstrates this
9 Our use of animals

Eating
Farming
Biomedical research (medicine and cosmetics)

What does Singer say about this?

Advocate for vegetarianism and animal liberation
10 Singer: What does eating
meat involve?
Eating animals involves:
Killing animals
Catching animals
Farming animals
Killing: No objection in principle to the painless
killing of lower animals (i.e. non-persons)
Have no preference for continued existence
A pleasant life is replaceable

So Singers case for vegetarianism does not rest on an

objection to the killing of animals
11 Singer: What does eating
meat involve?
However, given the current reality of the
way meat is produced for sale in the
wealthy world, we should give up eating
animals, because of bad consequences:
Bad consequences for the animals
Horrible living conditions

Bad consequences for the environment

18% of worldwide carbon emissions

Bad consequences for the worlds poor

Grain used to feed animals can feed the poor

Deliberate waste of food that goes to no one

Farming of replaceable animals
12

Farming animals?
Total view: does practice increase total view of
totality?
With POE, it looks like a defence for meat
But caution:
1) Are animals not persons? If they are then they must
be given longest possible lives
2) Singer for no animal eating rule, thus POE rule
extended to animals
3) Farming principle only for very small animals:
insects?
13 Biomedical research using
replaceable animals
Experiments on animals and humans
of similar mental capacity
We experiment on primates
Working on their brains in order to better know the human
brain
On animals it seems fine, but not
babies
This would shock us
Here we are talking about
experimentation for scientific gain
What about animal experimentation
for cosmetics?
14 Animal experimentation:
Different criteria
The 3 Rs in most animal ethics codes:
Replace animals wherever possible
Reduce the number of animals to the minimum
Refine techniques to minimise animal suffering
15 Animal experimentation:
Different criteria
Alternatives
1.The human priority view: Sound science is
the only criterion. If the experiment
expands the range of knowledge, its on.
2.The balancing view: The negative impact
on animals could potentially outweigh
the benefits of even sound science.
3.The equal interests view: No experimental
procedure that we would not perform
on humans with similar capacities to the
lab animal.
16 Animal experimentation:
Different criteria
US National Institutes of Health
Design and performance of procedures
on the basis of relevance to human or
animal health, advancement of
knowledge, or the good of society.
Use of appropriate species, quality, and
number of animals.
Avoidance or minimization of discomfort,
distress, and pain in concert with sound
science.
17 Animal experimentation:
Different criteria
NH&MRC Guidelines (Australia):
Projects using animals may be performed
only after a decision has been made that
they are justified, weighing the predicted
scientific or educational value of the projects
against the potential effects on the welfare
of the animals.
18 Whats wrong with this
picture?
If one, or even a dozen animals had to suffer
experiments in order to save thousands, I
would think it right and in accordance with the
equal consideration of interests that they should do
so [however] would experimenters be prepared
to perform their experiments on orphaned humans
with severe and irreversible brain damage if that
were the only way to save thousands?
(Singer, 1993: 67)
19 What about animal rights?

In spite of the popular rhetoric, Singers moral

philosophy is not about rights whether human or
animal
Tom Regan, The Case for Animal Rights (Univ. of
California Press, 1993)
Rejection of utilitarianism in favour of discourse on
rights
20 Regans argument in a
nutshell
1.Many animals resemble humans in respect of those
features that make one a holder of rights. They are
subjects of a life.
2.Every subject of a life has inherent value and is entitled
to respectful treatment.
3.Harms intentionally done to holders of this right cannot
be outweighed by greater goods elsewhere.
21 Regans conclusions

No use of animals for fashion (fur, leather).

No use of animals for entertainment
(circuses).
No use of animals for our gustatory delight.
No use of animals for research.

In all these cases we treat them as mere

resources, but this is incompatible with treating
a
being as having inherent value.
22 The steps qualifying for
rights
What does it take to have claim rights
on
others?
Hobbes: the ability to enter into a
contract.
Regan: being the subject-of-a-life
which results from having a unified
psychological presence.
Some animals see, hear, believe and desire, remember,
anticipate.
Like us, they care about what happens to themselves.
Share some emotions with human beings.
23 What right do animals have
then?
Right to respectful treatment:
The most basic right held by all
rights holders
Precludes being used merely as a
resource for racking up benefits
elsewhere.
A veto, not a vote.
The animals interests in avoiding suffering mean that it
can have a veto without being able to issue that veto.
24 Conclusions

Singers POE:
Radical consequences when it comes to
animals
Cant give a complete explanation of the
wrongness of racism
Singers pref. utilitarian principles strongly suggests
some changes to the way we treat animals.
Some (but not all) views about rights can also
recommend changes to the way we treat animals.
Animal versus human welfare is not simply a matter
of utilitarianism versus rights theories.
It is a question of personhood and life