Moral Considerability (Essay Sample)

please you have to read the instructions cause that's my midterm paper . (Topic) is about ( Moral Considerability/ Theories about how we should treat non-human animals ) follow the instructions please:: Listed below are a set of moral issues concerning the treatment of animals (and, in a few cases, other organisms) and then a question concerning the major theories relevant to these issues that we have studied in this environmental ethics course (up until now). As an exercise in choosing – or developing – the best moral theory by the method of reflective equilibrium you are to first consider how you would respond to these issues (i.e. think about what your considered opinion is towards them) and then use these considered moral judgments as a basis for choosing (or developing) the moral theory which you believe to be best in this context. The theory you believe to be best may be one proposed by a specific author, one made up of different components of various theories (so long as they are consistent, of course), or one that you develop yourself either in part or in whole (although it would probably be unusual for someone to come up with a completely unique theory in an introductory level course in these matters). However, as specified below, whatever theory you choose as best you are still required to at least briefly review and critique each of the major moral theories and each of the theorists listed in the prompt further below. (Please note that in this context the term “critique” does not mean that you necessarily have disagreements with the view you are “critiqueing”; it just means that you are critically assessing it.) In choosing (or developing) the best moral theory you should keep in mind the criteria for the adequacy of such theories that both Van de Veer and I propose: (1) that it is sufficiently clear and precise; (2) that it is sufficiently comprehensive; (3) that it is (internally) logically consistent; (4) that it utilizes the best scientific, empirical information and theories (that you know of); and, as mentioned above, (5) that it is in (wide) reflective equilibrium with your considered moral judgments. You should spend at least 75% of your paper on summarizing and critiqueing the theories of the authors listed and not more than 25% giving your considered opinion on the moral issues listed below. (You are not expected to say what position each of the authors listed would take on each of the moral issues listed below; you would not have time to accomplish such a task in the limits of your paper.) Also, please organize your paper modularly; i.e. with discrete sections/headings for the theories and sub-sections/sub-headings for the theorists we studied under those theories. I strongly recommend giving your answers to the moral issues questions either at the beginning or end of the essay. The moral issues you are to consider Please note that you should state your opinions on these issues at some point in your essay. Also, where relevant, you should state whether you are for – or against – a practice in principle or only given certain empirical assumptions you are making. For example, if you are opposed to shark finning are you opposed to it in principle (given that it kills the sharks and seems wasteful) or are you only against it because it is rapidly reducing shark populations such that some species may become extinct and, in addition, this may negatively affect the marine ecosystem. In addition, where relevant when you are arguing that some practice is wrong, you should make clear whether you are only arguing that people ought to voluntarily refrain from the practice – e.g. eating meat or raising animals for slaughter under any conditions or raising animals for slaughter under confinement or factory farm conditions – or are arguing that people should be prohibited from engaging in the practice by, e.g., laws. (1) Hunting and Trapping Animals: subsistence hunting (especially by indigenous people); commercial hunting; sport or trophy hunting; on “game ranches” (where exotic animals are slowly paraded past those who pay the steep prices to be shot at close range at their leisure); internet hunting (i.e. using a computer and joy stick to kill exotic animals in far-away places, which was only made illegal in the U.S. in the mid-2000s); to cull wildlife populations for human benefit; to cull wildlife populations for their own benefit or benefit of the ecosystem; e.g. to protect endangered species. But if culling wildlife for human benefit, does it make a difference how serious or significant the benefit is? For example, culling wildlife in order to increase human security from attacks (by bears or cougars, e.g.); in order to protect pets (e.g. cats and small dogs) from predation (by coyotes, e.g.); in order to protect crops or gardens from being significantly eaten (by deer, raccoons, etc.); in order to prevent deer, etc. from eating people’s ornamental flowers and plants. Also, if you accept sport hunting as legitimate, do you believe in the doctrine of fair chase; i.e. the doctrine that prey animals must be given some kind of “sporting chance” to escape the hunter(s). Examples of laws and regulations inspired by the doctrine of fair chase include: not setting out food that the prey animals can’t resist (such as salt blocks to attract deer, elk, etc.) and then shooting them from concealment as they approach; not wearing or planting scents made from pheromones of the prey animal that will automatically attract them, in order to shoot them from concealment;13 etc. (Presumably, the doctrine of fair chase would also be grounds for prohibiting “game ranch” and internet ‘hunting’.) (2) Eating Animals & Raising Animals for Slaughter: Eating Animals vs. vegetarianism and veganism); eating animals you kill on purpose; eating animals you kill accidentally (e.g. unavoidably hitting and killing a deer that has jumped in front of your fast-moving car); eating animals you happen to find dead (i.e. carrion). Raising Animals for Slaughter (for meat, fur, etc.); raising animals for slaughter under factory farm/confinement conditions vs. raising animals in a more humane way, e.g. on “family farms and ranches” and/or raising free range animals. Secondly, whether there should be actual laws regulating any of these policies or practices you support, or do you think that we should only try to convince people to voluntarily go along with the policies or practices. (3) Using Animals for Research (i.e. invasive forms of research, including vivisection) (for essential medical research to benefit humans (e.g. for cures or treatments of dread diseases such as cancer, AIDS, etc).; for important but non-essential medical research (e.g. for cures or treatments for flus); for not very important medical purposes (e.g. cures or treatments for the common cold); for testing cosmetics and other non-essential consumer products; for the benefit of the species being used in the research or some other equally (or more) highly cognitively sophisticated species (e.g., performing “taste aversion” experiments on wolves and coyotes (during which they are made sick with flu-like symptoms for 24 hours from eating a toxic salt hidden in pieces of beef, pork, mutton, etc. for the purpose of determining whether such a method is feasible for use on farm lands, ranch lands, and in free range areas such that hunting and trapping such predators would be less necessary for controlling their predation on stock animals such as cattle, pigs, and sheep); for the acquisition of general knowledge. Some examples of medical research that you will see in videos we will probably watch in class (or which are in our readings) are (a) the experiments to test cosmetics for sensitivity to human skin by cutting the eye lids off rabbits (or hamsters, rats, etc.), putting their heads in vices, and then slowly dripping the cosmetic product into their eyes to see how long it takes their eyes to turn to red mush; (b) the Walsh & McGee surgical experiments on cats (from animal pounds) aimed at curing or treating congenital deafness in humans (where 50% of the cats die from the surgery, and the rest are euthanized at the completion of the experiments), (c) the Harry Harlow 1960s experiments on the psychological development of Rhesus monkeys which involved isolating infant monkeys to various degrees and for various parts of their lives in order to see how they would psychologically develop (or fail to develop), and (d) the 1980s experiments, mentioned by Mary Midgley, in which monkeys were stuffed into small metal tubes for a month or more at a time to see how psychotic they would be when taken out. (4) whether there are important differences between how we should treat domestic(ated) vs. wild animals; keeping pets; maintaining zoos/wild animal parks/marine parks (to help preserve endangered species, for research purposes, to increase human familiarity with and sympathy towards wild animals, for human entertainment). For example, J. Baird Callicott, in his 1970 article “Animal Liberation and Environmental Ethics: a Triangular Affair” expresses complete disdain for domesticated animals as dumbed down animals, even mere “meat machines” as opposed to their wild cousins and ancestors. However, in his 1980 article “Animal Welfare & Environmental Ethics: Back Together Again,” Callicott repudiates his earlier view in favor of Mary Midgley’s view that we owe special obligations of care to domesticated animals that we don’t owe to wild animals because we did dumb down the former (through selective breeding) and, therefore, have an “unspoken social contract” with them to take care of them (since they are not as capable of taking care of themselves without our assistance. Some animal welfare theorists & advocates are opposed to keeping animals as pets (either under humane conditions or in loving environments). Some animal welfare theorists also seem to almost advocate that we should save wild animals from suffering and death (as well as domesticated animals), a view strongly opposed by those with a more environmentally oriented point of view/ethic. (That we should try to reduce or eliminate suffering of animals in the wild, which seems preposterous to many, is sometimes referred to as “Schweitzer’s Dilemma”.) Many animal welfare advocates as well as environmentally-oriented theorists (and people) oppose keeping wild animals captive in zoos or wild animal parks. But others argue that this depends on the conditions under which they are kept, especially on whether they are given enough room to 14 live a relatively normal life, are allowed to live in natural groups, are given “enriched” environments and activities, etc. The theories you are to review and critique: Anthropocentrism (Kant, R.D. Guthrie. William Baxter, Jan Narveson; R.G. Peffer on them); Animal Liberation (Peter Singer, Gary Varner on Singer; R.G. Peffer on them); Strong Animal Rights Theory (Tom Regan, Gary Varner on Regan; R.G. Peffer on them); Weak(er) Animal Rights Theory (Bernard Rollin, Mary Midgley, Mary Ann Warren, R.G. Peffer); Two-Factor Egalitarianism (Van de Veer, R.G. Peffer on Van de Veer); Four-Factor Ecological Ethics (R.G. Peffer); Biocentric Egalitarianism (Albert Schweitzer, Kenneth Goodpastor, Paul Taylor); and “Hard-nosed,” Naturalistic Ecocentric Views (Aldo Leopold, J. Baird Callicott, Holmes Rolston III, Mark Sagoff -- whose article does not necessarily reveal his own views but, rather, critiques J. Baird Callicott’s claim that Animal Welfare Theories (which I shall stipulatively define as including both Animal Liberation and Animal Rights Theories) are compatible with Hard-nosed, Naturalistic Ecocentric theories/views). You needn’t go into aspects of Aldo Leopold’s Land Ethic or other theories that don’t bear on the issues at hand, e.g. his views about environmental economics. But you should compare J. Baird Callicott’s views in his two articles "Animal Liberation: A Triangular Affair" and “Environmental Ethics and Animal Welfare: Back Together Again,” noting how some of his views changed and evaluating both sets of beliefs he puts forward. For each author be sure to specify what their cut-off point is for moral standing (both the criteria they are using and what entities they think these criteria cover, if they make that clear); whether they allow for differential moral weight (or significance) among entities above the cut-off point which differ significantly; and what kind of moral theory and what arguments they use to try to prove these points … if they rely on any arguments beyond appealing to our considered moral judgments about such things. (However, some of these theorists simply do not make their position on some of these issues clear; in those cases you don’t have to give this information in your essay.) You should, of course, assess these arguments and appeals to our considered moral judgments, keeping in mind the differences between and internal and external criticisms, and between moral and empirical issues and arguments. Internal criticisms are criticisms that point out internal flaws in a theorist’s theory or arguments, such as inconsistencies or logical fallacies. External criticisms are disagreements of opinion you may have with a theory or argument, e.g. regarding the truth of premises of arguments or important components of theories. These disagreements of opinion (belief) may concern either factual (empirical) claims (or theories) or concern normative (moral or prudential) claims (or theories). The basis for judging the former is empirical evidence, while the basis for judging the latter is whether or not – and to what extent – they are in (wide) reflective equilibrium with your considered moral judgments. Most of the objections you will have will probably be external objections on moral issues. However, you don’t have to repeat over and over again that you reject a view “because it disagrees with my considered moral judgments.” But you can give examples to help make this point. For example, if you find that you disagree with the strong anthropocentric view that nothing we can do to any non-human animal could possibly be morally wrong, you could say something like “I disagree with this because I think that torturing chimpanzees (or dogs or cats, or whatever) to death for no good reason is morally wrong, and should not be allowed.” Finally, state which of these theories or combinations of theories (or your own particular theory) is correct or most nearly adequate (in your opinion) and briefly say why. You can combine components of different theories but if you do this be careful to make sure that the overall theory you offer is consistent. For example, you can accept components of utilitarianism and deontological theories but you can’t accept both utilitarianism and deontological moral theory as a whole (because they are contradictory); you can accept different components of Animal Welfare Ethics and Environmental Ethics, but you can’t accept them both (as a whole) because, again, they are contradictory; you can accept various points of both Peter Singer’s and Tom Regan’s theories, but you can’t accept