Equal Consideration for Every Species - Assignment Example

ASSIGNMENTS: ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS Assignments: Answers to Questions Assignment 38 Speciesism only becomes analogous with sexism and racism throughlack of equal consideration by allowing animals to suffer despite knowing that they can also feel pain. 2. Singer (2011) has strong arguments on equal consideration for animals based on feeling pain and suffering, but he was unable to fully justify that using animals for experiments is akin to using brain-damaged humans because humans in any mental state are still humans, thus the additional rights over animals, plus it is easier to empathize than with animals with humans through understanding human suffering better than animals’. Assignment 39 1. Not all sentient beings have similar inherent value because their differences in abilities mark their uniqueness, and because their value depends on the viewer’s perspective. 2. It is not always wrong to use animals for human benefit because to some degree humans have greater control over animals, entailing personal judgment in striking a balance between excessive exploiting of animals and forgoing basic human rights in the name of animal rights. Assignment 40 Apart from Cohen’s (2011) statement against needless killing of animals, using a moral standpoint based on the interrelationships between humans and other living creatures in the biosphere it will be difficult to support his claims that animals have no rights because they do not contribute in any way on the establishment of morals and right conduct, and that humans are the only beings capable of achieving such a feat. Also, this idea blurs the fact that animals can also feel pain, further pushing the idea of human dominance above others. Therefore, it must be recalled that asserting dominance simply via human status is not enough to defend this position, as this same thinking about dominance brought forth the idea of the subservient position of women and slaves in the first place. Assignment 41 1. Warren (2011) argues that despite both having rights, humans have stronger rights than animals due because the former has complex thinking such as understanding and upholding morals, as well as retrospective and introspective thinking, whereas the latter does not. Assignment 42 The argument that it is justifiable to refrain from eating any kind of agricultural meat such as chicken, beef, or pork can only work on some cultures but not all. DeGrazia (2011) only took into consideration that under all favorable conditions, people can forgo meat and be equally satisfied with simply eating vegetables while reaping the benefits. However not all cultures can be expected to be very receptive to vegetarianism due to deep-seated cultures on meat consumption which transcend modern ideals on health and wellness, and this is where the total vegetarian argument becomes weak against, and the fact that the livelihoods depending on meat consumption will have to make huge changes so as not to lose income. In this case it is much better to simply reduce meat consumption and increase reliance on vegetables gradually, and allow this to happen across generations and cultures rather than immediate imposition that can cause dissent among consumers. Assignment 43 1. Humans mostly attach value to things if these are deemed to be beneficial to them to some extent, thus the likelihood that penguin lives will only be valuable if humans perceive it to be. 2. Human benefit will always come first in determining moral obligations to the rest of the natural world (Baxter, 2011). However, because humans can empathize it is also a moral obligation to extend these thoughts by keeping other living things alive and thriving. Assignment 44 1. Through an ethical perspective, songbirds and wild flowers as well as cockroaches and weeds have rights to exist. However, using an economic perspective pests such as cockroaches and weeds have lesser rights than songbirds and flowers due to the latter’s more negative effects to human living conditions and agricultural pursuits compared with the latter. Assignment 45 The conflicting concerns in weighing the importance of aesthetic concerns, especially regarding places in the environment housing different kinds of living organisms since some people would rather utilize these environments for the benefit of people, while others condemn such acts and regard these as immoral due to self-centered interests that only cater to human needs and not the needs of other living things (Rollin, 2011). Thus exercising environmental ethics may prove trickier than not due to the complexities in establishing what is considered ethical, who or what will be included in this exercising of morals and moral obligations, and establishing the individual rights of all participants, living or non-living. Assignment 46 2. The principles of deep ecology must be exercised to its full extent since it is possible to improve most of the world’s living conditions simply by removing the need for dominance in various aspects and in doing so contributes to the greater good of the Earth as a whole. Assignment 47 Guha (2011) points out a very strong argument that most environmentalists and conservationists often overlook when dealing with local issues on environmental and management concerns: that many of these foreign-based groups or authorities forget that the strong and lasting effects of socio-economics in the destabilization of biomes affect every living thing, including humans living at or near these biomes. When these foreign groups intervene simply for the sake of the ecosystem without realizing that communities are also part of this ecosystem and must be included in the plans for sustainability. Thus it cannot be helped to hear disgruntled voices in pursuing environmental management and restoration since these conservationists will not bear the burden but rather the local communities affected and displaced by such efforts. Assignment 48 In between prioritizing people living at present and the needs of people in the future, Broome (2011) sets the record straight by expressing his views that whatever people will pick on these two choices, what each individual will decide to do counts the most. By saying so this puts less pressure on philosophers and economists in arguing the “better” way of doing things for the benefit of people today or in the future, since in the end the cumulative action of every individual in the world which affect now and the future. Thus it is each person’s responsibility to make informed choices with the help of philosophers and economists. Assignment 49 Allowing pollution trade-off not only makes the amount of pollutants released by industrialized countries in the past in the process of development become unaccounted for, but it also permits these countries to be less responsible and stagnant in reducing pollutants while trying to control these same things in other, less-industrialized countries (Sagoff, 2011). This makes proportioning the amount of allowable pollutants and carbon dioxide emissions based on GDP per country much fairer and more logical by making sure that every country individually reduces pollutants and emissions compared to simply allowing industrialized countries to bypass emission limits through pollution trade-off. Assignment 50 Garvey (2011) has a strong point on how it is true that there is no single solution to solve the global warming and climate change crisis. This is because the whole problem is essentially the sum of smaller problems that only have a strong impact upon accumulation. As such due to the myriad of problems that caused the climate issue, it is just logical to solve these issues one by one to get to the bottom of the general problem. However, factors such as different economies, cultures, and development priorities will blind politicians into disregarding the importance of reducing the effects of further compounding collective issues, and as such it will take a longer time and a greater deal of effort in effectively dealing with the overall effects of industrialization and global warming. Assignment 51: Case Study Report Environmental issues have always sparked a debate, mainly due to the numerous differences between individuals and among nations regarding the selection of priority: on whether human lives in general or only of the locals shall be taken into consideration; or if nature itself must be given greater importance than human lives. In addition, there are also differences in establishing the roles and values of human life in relation to nature and the world as a whole (Devall & Sessions, 2011). Also, as long as the issues on social and economic aspects are unresolved, it will be expected that groups of people will continue to clash on asserting their beliefs that human lives are more important than anything else, or that nature is more important because it can exist even without humans, or something to that effect. Two case studies from White (2011) show how differences in viewpoints and priorities between authorities or larger groups and smaller groups can fuel the heated debate on defining what is “the common or greater good” and doing things that will benefit “the greater good”. The first case is between the fast food giant McDonald’s versus the grassroots coalition Beyond Beef, in which the larger group is McDonald’s and asserts the need to uphold the rights of a large number of the populace wanting to consume their beef burgers, while the smaller group is Beyond Beef and asserts the need to reduce or if possible entirely stop the over-consumption of beef due to the damage it causes in the environment such as destruction of rain forests, water pollution, and in the long run catalyzing the process global warming which will affect everyone on Earth. The second case on the other hand is between the conservationists and leaders of rich industrial nations and of the government of Brazil, wherein the leaders and conservationists are the larger groups and campaign the prevention of global warming by condemning the destruction of large rainforests by other countries, while Brazil on the other hand poses as the smaller group that assert the need to provide opportunities for the country’s citizens to thrive and for the economy to grow by tapping to the destruction of a large portion of the Amazon Rain Forest since the government can only rely on its own efforts to improve itself, and that the rainforest is still the sovereign’s property and not of the rest of the world’s. These choices pit the needs of two groups of people: the rest of the world who will suffer the consequences of climate change, and the people living in Brazil who were already living in worse conditions long before climate change even happens. As shown by the two scenarios, it can be seen that the stark differences in what the different groups prioritize or give greater value on will always separate the authority or large groups from the smaller groups. In the case of McDonald’s versus Beyond Beef, the former takes into consideration its multitudes of customers that buy beef burgers and in essence also fuel its existence, while the latter prioritizes the consequences of how the former conducts its business and taking into account the people that will be affected by the continuous beef consumption at the costs of mobilizing climate change that can affect a greater number of people, regardless of whether they eat beef burgers at McDonald’s or not. The case of conservationists and industrialized nations’ leaders versus the Brazilian government does not differ much with the first case other than the fact that the former puts global warming and climate change as a higher priority because more people will be affected by it, while the latter puts greater focus on improving its economy so for the betterment of its people’s lives by not have to suffer in dire conditions anymore (White, 2011). In choosing either one or the other, it is clear that issues will not be resolved unless compromises between the two groups are made and clearly written. As such, to balance the needs of larger groups with those of smaller groups’, mutual and clear agreements as well as compromises between opposing sides must be established since in essence both groups consist of individuals with inherent values and are therefore equally liable in accepting other living beings’ values as well. References Baxter, W.F. (2011). People or penguins: The case for optimal pollution. In T. Mappes, J. Zembaty & D. DeGrazia, Social ethics: morality and social policy, 8th ed.(pp.520-525). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Broome, J. (2011). The ethics of climate change. In T. Mappes, J. Zembaty & D. DeGrazia, Social ethics: morality and social policy, 8th ed.(pp.557-562). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Cohen, C. (2011). The case for the use of animals in biomedical research. In T. Mappes, J. Zembaty & D. DeGrazia, Social ethics: morality and social policy, 8th ed.(pp.482-490). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. DeGrazia, D. (2011). Moral vegetarianism, reconsidered. In T. Mappes, J. Zembaty & D. DeGrazia, Social ethics: morality and social policy, 8th ed.(pp.498-509). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Devall, B. & Sessions, G. (2011). Deep ecology. In T. Mappes, J. Zembaty & D. DeGrazia, Social ethics: morality and social policy, 8th ed.(pp.544-549). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Garvey, J. (2011). ‘We’re all eco-warriors now after world leaders failed us at Copenhagen”. In T. Mappes, J. Zembaty & D. DeGrazia, Social ethics: morality and social policy, 8th ed.(pp.570-572). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Guha, R. (2011). Radical American environmentalism and wilderness preservation: A third world critique. In T. Mappes, J. Zembaty & D. DeGrazia, Social ethics: morality and social policy, 8th ed.(pp.549-556). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Leopold, A. (2011). The land ethic. In T. Mappes, J. Zembaty & D. DeGrazia, Social ethics: morality and social policy, 8th ed.(pp.531-537). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Regan, T. (2011). The case for animal rights. In T. Mappes, J. Zembaty & D. DeGrazia, Social ethics: morality and social policy, 8th ed.(pp.477-482). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Rollin, B. E. (2011). Environmental ethics. In T. Mappes, J. Zembaty & D. DeGrazia, Social ethics: morality and social policy, 8th ed.(pp.537-543). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Sagoff, M. (2011). Controlling global climate: The debate over pollution trading. In T. Mappes, J. Zembaty & D. DeGrazia, Social ethics: morality and social policy, 8th ed.(pp.563-569). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Singer, P. (2011). All animals are equal. In T. Mappes, J. Zembaty & D. DeGrazia, Social ethics: morality and social policy, 8th ed.(pp.467-477). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Warren, M.A. (2011). Human and animal rights compared. In T. Mappes, J. Zembaty & D. DeGrazia, Social ethics: morality and social policy, 8th ed.(pp.491-498). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. White, J.E. (2011). Contemporary moral problems, 4th ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth. Read More