Wade--Take Home Exam #1

Wade--Take Home Exam #1 - Daniel Zauderer Symposium: The...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Daniel Zauderer Symposium: The Moral Standing of Animals Moderator: Good evening all, and welcome to “The Moral Standing of Animals.” I extend my gratitude to those of you who could attend tonight, and I assure you that the experience will be both intellectually fulfilling and entertaining. As tonight’s moderator, I will pose both informational and critical questions to our three panelists, experts on extensionism, in an effort to better understand the sentiments of animal rights/welfare activists today. Panelist 1 is a utilitarian, Panelist 2 a deontologist, and Panelist 3 an Aristotelian. I will end part one of tonight’s event with a criticism of the extensionist movement in order to smoothly transition to part two of the event, a speech from a surprise speaker. The first series of questions and criticisms will be directed at our Utilitarian. Could you please explain what you mean by “extensionism” in the context of animal rights? Utilitarian: Gladly, but before I do so I’d like to thank you for inviting me out here on this lovely evening. I am an “extensionist” because I attempt to take an ethical theory, Utilitarianism, which traditionally only grants moral standing to human beings, and extend it to cover non-human animals. Moderator: What is Utilitarianism? Utilitarian: In a nutshell, Utilitarianism is the maximization of pleasure and minimization of pain for all affected, because pleasure is the only intrinsic good and pain is the only intrinsic evil. I, as a utilitarian, believe in achieving the greatest good for the greatest number. Moderator: When analyzing the consequences of an action, whose interests does a utilitarian take into account? Utilitarian: Everyone’s! And all interests should be counted equally. As the famous utilitarian Jeremy Bentham said, “Each to count for one and none for more than one.” Moderator: But Bentham himself, through a utilitarian calculation, concluded that mass killing for food and research on animals should persist because it benefits humans far more than it harms animals, while you believe that both should be radically reformed. Why is it that you so radically differ from Bentham when you utilize a similar ethical theory? Utilitarian: Bentham only came to such a conclusion because he was engaging in “speciesism.” Moderator: “Speciesism?” Utilitarian: Yes. Just as racism justified discrimination through an appeal to a morally irrelevant quality, race, and sexism justified discrimination through an appeal to a morally irrelevant quality, sex, “speciesism” justifies discrimination through an appeal to a morally irrelevant quality, species difference . Bentham, because he was immersed in the anthropocentrism (human-centeredness) of the day--the belief that all animals are mere means—came to the speciesist conclusion that human interests are far more important than non-human ones. If it weren’t for his speciesism, Bentham would have arrived at the same conclusion I have. Moderator:
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 8

Wade--Take Home Exam #1 - Daniel Zauderer Symposium: The...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online