Philosophy test 3 study guide

Philosophy test 3 study guide - Philosophy 2010 Study Guide...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Philosophy 2010 Study Guide Test 3 Singer-All Animals are Equal Relates animals being equal to people being equal He says that some people just aren’t equal, even though we make arguments like women are just as equal as men He says that if pigs don’t have the right to vote then women shouldn’t either. When it comes to animals, humans are only concerned about the way they taste. Animals have to suffer in order for us to be able to afford or pay for the meat that we buy to fill out “tastes.” According to Singer, each of us has a moral obligation to stop supporting this practice. He says this may be difficult, but compares it to being no more difficult that the white slave owners changing their ways and freeing their slaves. Basically he says that using animals for our purposes to eat them, harm them, or do tests on them is discrimination. McGinn- Speciesism Martians are of a higher more intelligent species than humans and they come down to earth and do the same things to humans that we do to animals and humans have no moral logic behind why it is wrong to them and they’re just going to do it anyways, even though they could get by without making human lives living hell or killing them. Monkeys have evolved to be a more intelligent civilized species they protest as to what humans are doing to they by doing tests on them. Humans say since their species isn’t identical to ours even though they are equal to us in every respect, we have no moral reason to stop our painful and fatal experiments on them. Biologists found out that there is DNA evidence to provide two different species of humans, even though we all act and look similar. Would this cause humans to redraw ethical boundaries? Would cannibalism become morally licit. Speciesism is therefore indefensible as a general moral principle. Mill-Utilitarianism Goal: to maximize happiness, not suffering for the entire universe Not all happiness is equal Impartiality: doesn’t matter who has happiness/suffering, everyone’s happiness/suffering is equal 2 Objections: 1. Asking too much from the people a. Counter:
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
i. Motives don’t matter; only thing that matters is the outcome. Motive doesn’t have to be to increase overall happiness, it can be selfish. 2. “Godless doctorate” (lacks a god-the theory could be true if God didn’t exist) a. Counter: i. Suppose God wants overall balance of happiness to be greater than suffering then God would be an Utilitarian. Kant-Metaphysics of Morals- “good”
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 01/17/2011 for the course PHIL 2001 taught by Professor Grindallin during the Spring '10 term at UGA.

Page1 / 5

Philosophy test 3 study guide - Philosophy 2010 Study Guide...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

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