forked from twu-fhss/phil210
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
u7.qmd
235 lines (125 loc) · 21.1 KB
/
u7.qmd
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
# Animal Rights
::: {#fig-U7x43699044114x5156812c09xz}
{fig-alt="" .lightbox fig-align="left"}
<!-- Image missing caption and alt text-->
:::
*Image of animal liberation protest. Photo Credit: [flickr photo by Ian Sane](https://flickr.com/photos/31246066){target="_blank"}*
## Overview {.unnumbered}
Do animals have rights? We commonly speak of humans having rights, but animals? Could it be that your pet cat, or dog, or the local farmer’s livestock, or even animals living in the wild, have rights to certain things? This question has been a point of intense discussion in the past few decades and it is the focus of this unit. When we ask if animals have rights, we are really asking whether animals are the kinds of beings that could have rights. Of course, we cannot answer that question without having some idea of what kinds of beings have rights in the first place. If we can provide an answer to this question, then we will be well on our way to knowing whether animals have rights. The question of whether animals have rights leads directly to a more foundational one, namely, what it means to attribute a right to a being, whether it be a human or an animal? What are we saying when we affirm that someone has a right to something?
A **right** is one of the strongest entities of which one could speak in both legal and moral discourse. It conveys the idea of being entitled to something. If a person does not receive something to which they have a right, then a wrong has been done. Their rights have been violated. This means that to affirm that one has a right to something is to make a forceful statement and one that carries implications for other people.
**Legal rights**, such as the right to live free of a home invasion, are declared and enforced by governments. If someone violates your legal rights by breaking into your home and robbing you at gun point, that person violates this legal right of yours. He has acted illegally and, consequently, if caught, will be subject to a penalty from the government.
In this unit, we are primarily concerned with moral rights rather than legal ones. **Moral rights** exist whether or not they are declared, recognized, or enforced by governments. Of course, there is often debate about whether something actually is a moral right, but few people disagree that moral rights exist. To have a moral right to something, say a right to live free of harm from others, means one is entitled to live without being attacked by others in one’s society regardless of whether the law requires it or not. If your neighbour attacks you in front of your home, then a moral wrong has been done since you did not receive something to which you had a moral right, namely an existence free of harm from others.
We can take this one step further. If you have a moral right to something, say to live in safety, it also means that someone somewhere, in this case other members of your society, have a corresponding **moral duty** to honour that right by not causing you harm. If they do, then they have not fulfilled their moral duty to you. They have acted immorally.
It should be obvious that the way we answer our original question of whether animals have rights will have a far-reaching implication for us. If we affirm that animals do have rights, it will mean that we have corresponding duties to treat them in certain ways and, in fact, are acting immorally if we do not treat them in these ways. We may prefer to deny that animals have rights in order to relieve ourselves of our duties toward them. Our desire to avoid moral duties, however, will not count as a legitimate reason for a no-animal-rights position because moral rights, by their nature, are not things we simply decide to confer upon others. That’s how legal rights work, but not moral rights. Moral rights are entities we simply recognize or discover.
If animals do have rights, then a few other questions immediately follow. Which animals, what rights, and how did they get them? What is the basis for believing such rights exist? To answer this, we could ask how we, as humans, “get” the rights we say we have, rights to such things as life and liberty. Legal rights come from the government, but from where do we derive moral rights? Answering this question will inevitably lead to the question of what kinds of beings have rights. A more technical way of asking this is: **What are the “rights-giving characteristics” which any being who has rights possesses, and do any animals possess these characteristics?** This, then, becomes one of the key questions for us to explore. Answering it will help us determine whether a particular animal has rights. Different answers have been given to this query and we will see three very different ones in the readings for this unit. We will have an opportunity to examine and evaluate the basis for different perspectives regarding our duties to animals with our class colleagues.
### Topics {.unnumbered}
This unit is divided into 3 topics:
1. Are Animals Self-Aware?
2. Do We Practice Speciesism?
3. Animals Do Have Rights But. . .
### Learning Outcomes {.unnumbered}
When you have completed this unit you should be able to:
- Define the term “right.”
- Specify the difference between legal and moral rights.
- Explain how moral rights are related to moral duties.
- Identify at least two rights-giving-characteristics which any being which possesses moral rights must have.
- Explain and assess Peter Singer’s rationale for his view that animals have certain moral rights.
### Activity Checklist {.unnumbered}
Here is a checklist of learning activities you will benefit from in completing this unit. You may find it useful for planning your work.
#### Read, View and Reflect {.unnumbered}
- Read the introductory section on animal rights (pages 426-27) and the section by Immanuel Kant (p. 428-29) in your *Readings* textbook. Watch the videos related to the topic.
- Read the section on animal rights by Peter Singer (pages 429-435) in your *Readings* textbook. Watch the videos related to the topic.
- Read the section on animal rights by Roger Scruton (pages 436-443) in your *Readings* textbook. Watch the videos related to the topic.
#### Singer Case Study {.unnumbered}
Read and analyze the case study presented.
#### AI Extension {.unnumbered}
Read an article and watch the video on AI and personhood. Reflect on if AI should have rights.
#### Key Terms Quiz {.unnumbered}
Take the ungraded quiz to review important concepts.
#### Assignment {.unnumbered}
Ethics Committee Response (15%)
:::
### Resources {.unnumbered}
Here are the resources you will need to complete this unit.
- Wolff, Jonathan. *Readings in Moral Philosophy*. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2018.
- Other online resources will be provided in the unit.
## Are Animals Self-Aware?
The first answer concerning animal rights that we will consider is given by the eighteenth century German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, who believed animals do not have rights. Interestingly he tied his answer directly to the question of what kinds of being have rights. In order to have a right, says Kant, a being must be self-conscious, or in other words, self-aware. Since he believed animals do not have this characteristic, they cannot possess rights. As we read his article, we will want to note carefully how he arrived at these two conclusions, first, that a key rights-giving characteristic of any being is self-consciousness (sometimes referred to as self-awareness), and secondly, that animals do not possess this characteristic. Let’s suppose, for purposes of argument, that Kant was correct. What does this mean, then, for the way we should treat animals? One might think that if animals have no rights, as Kant argued, that we are free to treat them in just any old way. We may be surprised at Kant’s answer to this question but it is one to which we will also want to pay special attention. Once we understand it, we will be in a position to see if we agree with it.
### Learning Activities {.unnumbered}
<!-- [plugin:content-inject](../_7-1){target="_blank"}Hidden comment -->
::: {.learning-activity}
#### Read, View and Reflect {.unnumbered}
In the first activity, you are asked to read the introductory section on animal rights (pages 426-27) and the section by Immanuel Kant (p. 428-29) in your textbook, *Readings in Moral Philosophy* by Jonathan Wolff. As you read, take notes in your Learning Journal, defining key terms and explaining key concepts. Next, choose from the following videos to learn more about key terms from this topic.
<div class="video-container"> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/y3-BX-jN_Ac" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<div class="video-container"> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/BDJ8xyQjyhM" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<div class="video-container"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/-wkdH_wluhw" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
:::
## Do We Practice Speciesism?
The second answer to our question about animal rights could hardly be more different from Immanuel Kant’s. It comes from well-known American ethicist, Peter Singer, who argued that animals do, indeed, have rights, in the same strong sense as we humans have them. Furthermore, since animals have rights, it means that many of our current practices involving animals are actually immoral. They violate the rights of animals. In fact, Singer went so far as to argue that the very principle of equality which we apply to humans should be extended to many animals as well. When we restrict this principle to humans, he said, we are guilty of something he called **speciesism**. While this term may be new to us, it is one we will want to understand clearly when we read his article. It is akin to the terms, racism and sexism, which refer to practices which are immoral because they violate the principle of equality. Speciesism, said Singer, also violates this principle and, for this reason, is immoral as well. As we read through Singer’s article, we’ll want to see precisely what he meant by the term, speciesism, and how he reasoned to his conclusion that animals have rights in this strong sense.
### Learning Activities {.unnumbered}
<!-- [plugin:content-inject](../_7-2){target="_blank"} -->
::: {.learning-activity}
#### Read, View and Reflect {.unnumbered}
Read the section on animal rights by Peter Singer (pages 429-435) in your textbook, *Readings in Moral Philosophy* by Jonathan Wolff. Take notes defining key terms and ideas. Study the chapter review summary, questions and key terms. Next, choose from the following videos to learn more about key terms from this topic.
<div class="video-container"> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/GxM9BZeRrUI" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<div class="video-container"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/k57F49ymmQg" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<div class="video-container"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/TgRoZVT6kYc" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
:::
## Animals-Do-Not-Have-Rights-But. . .
The third answer to our question about animal rights comes from American English professor, Roger Scruton, and could be summed up as the, “Animals-do-not-have-rights-but. . .” position. They do not have rights, says Scruton, for the simple reason that they are not the kinds of beings that possess rights. Notice that in saying this, Scruton, like Kant, is grounding his view on animal rights directly in the question of the kind of beings which have rights.
What kinds of beings, then, do have rights? Scruton’s answer is that **persons** have rights while **nonpersons** do not. But what, precisely, does it mean to be a person? It means, he says, that one has the distinguishing features of personhood which include such things as self-awareness, the power of reason, personality, etc. Persons are capable of entering into ongoing dialogue with other persons. To state this more technically, personhood is the chief rights-giving characteristic.
Scruton also introduces the term **moral community.** This refers to a group of persons who have both moral rights and also corresponding moral duties to each other. Again, they have these because they are the types of beings which are capable of having such rights and duties, namely, persons. Animals, on the other hand, are not members of moral communities since they do not have these characteristics.
As we read Scruton’s article, we will want to ask, however, if he has left open the possibility that there could be exceptions to his principle. What would happen, for example, if we discovered animals that did appear to have these rights-giving characteristics, self-awareness, reason, personality, etc.? Might they be persons? If so, would we need to regard them as having rights and duties and, thus, as being members of a moral community?
Regardless of how we answer that question, we will also want to pay special heed to the question of how animals should be treated if they really have no rights, as Scruton argues. It’s the same question we asked for Immanuel Kant’s view. If they have no rights, does this mean that any treatment of them at all is morally permissible? Interestingly, Scruton’s answer is, no. He argues that we still have moral duties to animals even though these duties are not grounded in any rights possessed by the animals. On what, then, are they grounded?
We will want to take special note of Scruton’s reasoning and learn on what he is grounding our duties to animals. If they are not grounded on any rights possessed by the animals, then where do our duties come from? Once we grasp his answer to this question, we will be in a position to assess the basis he provides for our duties toward animals.
### Learning Activities {.unnumbered}
<!-- [plugin:content-inject](../_7-3){target="_blank"} -->
::: {.learning-activity}
#### Read, View and Reflect {.unnumbered}
Read the section on animal rights by Roger Scruton (pages 436-443) in your textbook, *Readings in Moral Philosophy* by Jonathan Wolff. Take notes defining key terms and ideas. Study the chapter review summary, questions and key terms. Next, watch the following videos to learn more about key terms from this topic.
[PHILOSOPHY - Ethics: Moral Status](https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/wi-phi/wiphi-value-theory/wiphi-ethics/v/moral-status){target="_blank"} (7 minutes)
<div class="video-container"> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/3HAMk_ZYO7g" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<!-- [plugin:content-inject](../_7-4){target="_blank"} -->
#### Case Study {.unnumbered}
For this case study, analyze Peter Singer’s well-known contention that the vital characteristic that gives a being the right to equal consideration is not the **ability to reason**, as is commonly assumed, but rather the **capacity for suffering.** To review this, see his article in the course readings (pages 429-432). Do you agree with this contention? Why or why not? State also whether you agree with the principle he derives from this contention, namely, that the principle of equality which we commonly apply to humans should be extended to other species. If you agree with this, explain why. If you do not agree, explain why. In either case, draw upon the concepts and principles from both Immanuel Kant’s and Roger Scruton’s articles.
*Note that you may be asked to review this case or similar cases in your class discussion groups. You may want to prepare by relating the case to your readings. Specifically, identify the ethical issues and terms to help explain the case.*
<!-- [plugin:content-inject](../_7-6){target="_blank"} -->
#### Key Terms Quiz (ungraded) {.unnumbered}
In order to review some of the major concepts from the text, take the following unmarked quiz. Although you will not be evaluated on these terms, they will assist you in the assignments for this course. Match the following terms to their correct definition.
<!-- [plugin:content-inject](../_7-5){target="_blank"} -->
#### Artificial Intelligence Extension {.unnumbered}
There are many sci-fi movies and shows that play with the idea of the personhood of Artificial Intelligence. However, is this idea as fictional as it once was? Or has technological innovation brought this idea to the point where we need to seriously address it?
Watch the following video to learn more about if AI has rights. Then read the article from Forbes.
<div class="video-container"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/39EdqUbj92U" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
[Did A Robot Write This?](https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicolemartin1/2019/02/08/did-a-robot-write-this-how-ai-is-impacting-journalism/#6d4b9c347795){target="_blank"}
:::
::: {.note icon="true"}
**Questions to reflect on: **
How does some of the ideas surrounding the personhood of AI reflect some of the ideas and arguments you have encountered about animal rights? What do you think? Could strong AI be considered a person and have rights? Use key terms from this unit to justify your answer.
:::
## Assessment {.unnumbered}
<!-- [plugin:content-inject](../_Assignment2){target="_blank"} -->
::: {.note}
### Assignment: Ethics Committee Response (15%) {.unnumbered}
After completing this unit, including the learning activities, you are asked to meet with your Ethics Committee and create a response to the following:
A strongly worded editorial has just appeared in a local newspaper accusing the community zoo, and all zoos, of violating the rights of animals. Among other things, the author of the article pointedly asked, “How would we like it if we were the ones being confined in this way? It’s not natural for humans and it’s not for animals either.”
A group is now lobbying the city council to shut down the zoo and the council has turned to your ethics committee for a recommendation. Your task is to write a brief report in which you do the following things:
- Define the concept of a right.
- State whether or not animals have rights. Tell why you answer as you do.
- If animals do have rights, does the practice of keeping them in zoos violate their rights. Again, give a reason for your answer.
As you collaborate on this assignment, be sure to refer to the **grading criteria** in the Assessments section of this course. Submit your report on Moodle by the end of the week.
<!-- [plugin:content-inject](../_Assignment1){target="_blank"} -->
### Assignment: Reflective Journal (ungraded practice) {.unnumbered}
After completing this unit, including the learning activities, you are asked to write a Reflective Journal entry of 250-400 words, answering the following: Examine Peter Singer’s basis for moral obligation to animals, including an analysis of Singer’s extension of the principle of equality to animals. On what is this principle based? What does it mean to say animals are “equal” to humans? State your agreement or disagreement with this principle along with your reasons. In addition, consider the issue of animal abuse. What steps could you take to solve this problem or advocate for animal rights?
### Discussion Responses {.unnumbered}
After you have finished your journal assignment, you will share your responses in class with your peers. As you discuss, be sure to respond substantively. Be sure to include your initial journal response, as well as ideas from your class discussion.
:::
## Checking Your Learning {.unnumbered}
::: {.check}
Before you move on to the next unit, you may want to check to make sure that you are able to:
- Define the term “right.”
- Specify the difference between legal and moral rights.
- Explain how moral rights are related to moral duties.
- Identify at least two rights-giving-characteristics which any being which possesses moral rights must have.
- Explain and assess Peter Singer’s rationale for his view that animals have certain moral rights.
:::