03.09.concerns+about+workers.actual

03.09.concerns+about+workers.actual - E ATING RIGHT: THE...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–16. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
EATING RIGHT: THE ETHICS OF FOOD CHOICES AND FOOD POLICY March 9, 2011 Arguments Based on Concerns about Workers
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Plan for Today: Admin stuff Cohen Schlosser and Estabrook on treatment of workers in meat and tomato production. Arguments about food choices & food policy based on concerns about workers
Background image of page 2
Admin Stuff: Papers Paper assignment posted to Sakai Drafts due 4 weeks after your poster presentation. (So, starting March 30.) Final versions due May 2.
Background image of page 3

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Micro-Quiz
Background image of page 4
All answers are correct - just click in.
Background image of page 5

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Cohen Cohen’s core case is experimentation. In the case of experimentation on humans, there’s a very powerful interest in learning, acquiring vaccines, etc., pulling against a *right* not to be experimented on.
Background image of page 6
Cohen But rights always win when pitted against interests, however strong (or anyway, up to a very large threshold). So (signifcantly) harmFul experimentation on humans is wrong.
Background image of page 7

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Experimentation on animals, same very powerful scientiFc interest, pulling against *something*. Against a right not to be treated that way? Or against an interest in not being treated that way? Worth thinking about how similar or different the case of food is from the case of experimentation.
Background image of page 8
If it’s a right, then most animal experimentation is wrong. If it’s an interest, then it depends on how strong the interest is, and how much weight it gets. Worth thinking about how similar or different the case of food is from the case of experimentation.
Background image of page 9

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Cohen’s two lines of argument: First line: Argue that saying that animals have rights has absurd, unacceptable, clearly false consequences.
Background image of page 10
Cohen’s two lines of argument: First line: 1.If animals have rights, then all experimentation is wrong. 2.Not all experimentation is wrong.___________________ 3.Animals don’t have rights.
Background image of page 11

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Cohen’s two lines of argument: Second line: Give a substantive story of what it takes to have a right, argue that humans meet the criteria while animals don’t.
Background image of page 12
Cohen’s two lines of argument: Second line: 1. In order to have moral rights, one must be a member of the moral community (the community of moral agents). 2. Animals are not members of the moral community. (They’re only moral patients .) 3. Animals do not have moral rights.
Background image of page 13

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Cohen vs. Animal Rights: Obvious objection: Marginal cases. Cohen’s response - the relevant passage is a bit puzzling. (I encourage you to go back and check it out - it’s on p.97.)
Background image of page 14
A Path to Conscientious Omnivory Rights-based arguments would show that meat-eating was impermissible, if animals had rights. But animals don’t have rights. Interest- based arguments won’t show that meat-eating in general is impermissible. Interest-based arguments do show that eating factory-farmed meat is impermissible. Scruton follows pretty much this line.
Background image of page 15

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 16
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 09/15/2011 for the course PHILOSOPHY 252 taught by Professor Egan during the Spring '11 term at Rutgers.

Page1 / 70

03.09.concerns+about+workers.actual - E ATING RIGHT: THE...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 16. Sign up to view the full document.

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