His principle of equal consideration of interests does not dictate equal treatment of all those with interests, since different interests warrant different treatment. All have an interest in avoiding pain, for instance, but relatively few have an interest in cultivating their abilities.
Basil Blackwell,pp. That movement, as I conceive it, is committed to a number of goals, including: There are, I know, people who profess to believe in animal rights but do not avow these goals. Factory farming, they say, is wrong - it violates animals' rights - but traditional animal agriculture is all right.
Toxicity tests of cosmetics on animals violates their rights, but important medical research — cancer research, for example — does not.
The clubbing of baby seals is abhorrent, but not the harvesting of adult seals. I used to think I understood this reasoning. You don't change unjust institutions by tidying them up. What's wrong — fundamentally wrong — with the way animals are treated isn't the details that vary from case to case.
It's the whole system. The forlornness of the veal calf is pathetic, heart wrenching; the pulsing pain of the chimp with electrodes planted deep in her brain is repulsive; the slow, tortuous death of the racoon caught in the leg-hold trap is agonizing.
But what is wrong isn't the pain, isn't the suffering, isn't the deprivation. These compound what's wrong.
Sometimes - often - they make it much, much worse. But they are not the fundamental wrong. The fundamental wrong is the system that allows us to view animals as our resources, here for us — to be eaten, or surgically manipulated, or exploited for sport or money.
Once we accept this view of animals - as our resources - the rest is as predictable as it is regrettable.
|Famine, Affluence, and Morality - Wikipedia||How a liberal learned to respect conservative thinking and accept the fact that, yes, the right is happier than the left By Catherine Caldwell-Harris Photo by Jessica Scranton What It Means When You Dye Your Hair Purple Should a something information technology specialist, by all accounts a competent employee, be able to dye her long, wavy brown hair purple without getting grief from management?|
Why worry about their loneliness, their pain, their death? Since animals exist for us, to benefit us in one way or another, what harms them really doesn't matter — or matters only if it starts to bother us, makes us feel a trifle uneasy when we eat our veal escalope, for example.
So, yes, let us get veal calves out of solitary confinement, give them more space, a little straw, a few companions. But let us keep our veal escalope.
But a little straw, more space and a few companions won't eliminate - won't even touch - the basic wrong that attaches to our viewing and treating these animals as our resources. A veal calf killed to be eaten after living in close confinement is viewed and treated in this way: To right the wrong of our treatment of farm animals requires more than making rearing methods 'more humane'; it requires the total dissolution of commercial animal agriculture.
How we do this, whether we do it or, as in the case of animals in science, whether and how we abolish their use - these are to a large extent political questions.
People must change their beliefs before they change their habits.Misc thoughts, memories, proto-essays, musings, etc.
And on that dread day, the Ineffable One will summon the artificers and makers of graven images, and He will command them to give life to their creations, and failing, they and their creations will be dedicated to the flames. 'Famine, Affluence, and Morality', by Peter Singer. As I write this, in November , people are dying in East Bengal from lack of food, shelter, and medical care.
PHI HE 1 Famine, Affluence, and Morality by Peter Singer The Elements of Reason #8 1. Use two or three sentences to state the main purpose or argument in this article. "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" is an essay written by Peter Singer in and published in Philosophy and Public Affairs in It argues that affluent persons are morally obligated to donate far more resources to humanitarian causes than is considered normal in Western heartoftexashop.com essay was inspired by the starvation of Bangladesh Liberation War refugees, and uses their situation as an.
This paper explores Peter Singer’s argument, in Famine, Affluence, and Morality, that we have morally required obligations to those in need. The explanation of his argument and conclusion, if accepted, would dictate changes to our lifestyle as well as our conceptions of duty and charity, and would.
I regard myself as an advocate of animal rights — as a part of the animal rights movement. That movement, as I conceive it, is committed to a number of goals, including.