for truhar PHI208 second attempt
Qualitywritings2000 (Not rated)
(Not rated)
Question 1. 1. According to Jeremy Bentham (as described by Singer) what should determine whether a being’s interests should be taken into account? (Points : 1) Whether they have the faculty of discourse
Whether they can reason
Whether they can suffer
Whether they are capable of love
Helen: “I agree. It is always immoral to violate someone's rights.” Ginny: “Well, I wouldn’t say ‘always’. It’s o.k. to violate rights whenever the good you can produce by doing so outweighs the harm you do by violating the person’s rights.” Kate: “I disagree with both of you. The notion of rights is just a mechanism for the lesser members of society to maintain control over those capable of greatness.” |
That a good speciesist would not perform experiments on any being That we should test upon mentally disabled human infants because the results would be more reliable than tests on animals That anyone who would consider testing on a human infant is a monster |
Animals should never be used for medical research or commercial agriculture Animals should only be used for medical research shown to be beneficial to humanity, never for agriculture Animals should be used in both medical research and agriculture but should be treated as humanely as possible |
They are kept in such tight confinement that they cannot lift their wings They are starved into a period of ‘forced molting’ They have their beaks painfully seared off |
They are castrated and have tails chopped without pain killers They are slaughtered quickly and painlessly Many are quite conscious while being slaughtered |
only the agent and those the agent cares about. everyone, but weights the happiness of the agent more heavily. everyone, and weights everyone’s happiness equally. |
It does not adequately reduce the number of experiments to only what is medically necessary It treats animals as resources; as though they exist for us That it doesn’t utilize animals enough for beneficial purposes |
It ignores the importance of pain and suffering when it comes to ethics It would allow all kinds of human injustice if a stronger group is able to oppress the members of a weaker group of people He does not criticize it; he things that contractarianism, if properly understood, represents the most rational approach to ethical problems |
Utilitarianism would say that God’s law that “thou shalt not kill” will have very few exceptions Utilitarianism says that human life has not much value at all, a person can be killed for relatively minor reasons, like stealing their money Because utilitarianism is aggregative, one individual’s right to life can be overridden in order to save many other people’s lives |
The view that endangered species have the right to exist Allowing the interests of one’s own species to override the greater interests of members of other species Protecting endangered species from extinction regardless of economic costs |
Some are so crippled from unnatural growth that they are unable to move They are given ample space to roam and to express their own natural behavior. They are often beaten with metal rods, which is considered legal by the industry |
We have equal inherent value if we are able to experience pain and pleasure, suffering and misery We do not all have inherent value; only those that live and abide by moral principles have inherent worth Different societies have different views about what is right and wrong, so the ‘inherent value’ of individuals is relative |
Each individual is required to sacrifice their own individual happiness for the happiness of all. With the right social arrangements and education, individuals can come to associate their own individual happiness with the happiness of all. Neither the happiness of the individual nor the happiness of all is worth pursuing, since neither is attainable in this life. |
Animals are not entitled to not all the same rights but to an equal consideration of interests. Animals should not be given the same moral consideration because they are do not have the same power to reason as humans. Animals do not have rights unless they can demonstrate the same abilities as humans. |
That they all say that animals should have rights too That they come up with unjustified methods to include all humans while excluding all animals from moral consideration That animals do not have rights because they are not as smart as humans are |
disagreements about the meaning of pleasure or happiness determining what constitutes the greatest good all of the above |
Law – legal regulations requiring us to respect the rights of animals Reason – this theory has the best reasons on its side Religion – the laws of God mandate human compassion |
They tend to become wider in scope … with people learning to apply moral principles to groups previously not considered. They tend to become more discriminatory … giving fewer and fewer rights to the less privileged. They tend to discover that the original concepts in the past were superior and it is a mistake to veer from traditional wisdom. |
Question 20. 20. What does Tom Regan say about the cruelty/kindness approach to animal ethics? (Points : 1) |
The best way to explain animal ethics is in terms of our obligation to be kind and not cruel to animals
It is inadequate because it is possible to do wrong while being kind, and it is possible to do wrong without being deliberately cruel
It has no relevance to animal ethics because animals are cruel to each other
You have to be cruel to be kind, in the right measure
- 9 years ago
for truhar PHI208 second attempt (All correct)
Purchase the answer to view it
- truhar_quiz.docx