ipl-logo

Utilitarianism: The Argument From Marginal Cases

750 Words3 Pages

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that endorses the pursuit of well-being as the best course of action for a good life. One prevalent subject surrounding utilitarianism, and ethics in general, is the treatment of animals in relation to the treatment of humans. While there are many different opinions on correct animal treatment, utilitarianism is one that argues that some humans are morally equal to some animals. This essay further explains the utilitarian view of moral equivalency between humans and animals and why it is an accurate claim. Utilitarianism offers the claim that humans and animals can be considered equals and therefore treated equally in similar situations. In the eyes of a utilitarian, humans and animals can be equals because …show more content…

Few people will argue that it is wrong to make humans suffer or that it is wrong to make animals suffer, but it seems harder to consider humans and animals equal simply on the grounds that they both suffer. This is where The Argument from Marginal Cases comes in. The utilitarian defines marginal humans and animals as equals because of the mentally handicapped state of the human. In the case of a marginal human, both animal and human are capable of feeling physical pain along with the same degree of mental/emotional pain. Another argument for this is that it is wrong to take advantage of an a injured animal who can not defend itself because an injured animal is equal to an injured human and it is wrong to take advantage of injured humans who can not defend themselves. The utilitarian view is correct in judging both human and animal on a level ground. To further dispute The Argument from Marginal Cases, one might say that marginal humans are always more important than animals based on religious beliefs or that marginal humans are more important than animals just because they are human. Both of these claims suffer from the same self-centered bias without any tangible evidence for support. This mistakenly attempts to justify species membership as a separate morally important

Show More
Related

Similarities Between Utilitarianism And Animal Rights

269 Words | 2 Pages

For vegetarians, animal rights should trump human rights. In “Utilitarianism, Vegetarianism, and Animal Rights,” Tom Regan defines animal rights as “the natural right to life” (307). Similar to Regan, many vegetarians believe that animals have rights and deserve to have their best interests taken into consideration, regardless of whether they are useful to humans. By switching to a plant-base diet, people will be able to alleviate the needless suffering and deaths of countless animals. Besides, in the same article, Regan also suggests “to treat animals in a more humane manner” (308).

Read More

Bonnie Steinbock's Argument Analysis

782 Words | 4 Pages

In this paper, I will focus on Bonnie Steinbock’s claim on whether or not we should give equal moral consideration to species outside our own species group. I will first determine what moral concern means, according to Peter singer, and explain how he views the human treatment of animals. I will then outline Steinbock’s argument against Singer’s position and explain how her criticism is part of a much broader issue: that is moral concern. I will finally make my argument against Steinbock as well as address any issues she could possibly raise against my argument. Peter Singer believed that all species, whether it be human or non-human, deserve equal consideration of interests and quality of life.

Read More

Singer's Interpretation Of The Basic Moral Principle Of Equality

651 Words | 3 Pages

Both nonhumans and humans are capable of suffering and have particular interests. One of the main interests both nonhuman animals and humans have in common is avoiding suffering. In today’s society, most humans are speciesists. When we encounter other nonhumans, it is generally over a plate. We consume nonhumans lives to satisfy our taste buds.

Read More

A Change Of Heart About Animals Analysis

526 Words | 3 Pages

In Jeremy Rifkin’s article, “A Change of Heart about Animals”, proves his statement that many of our fellow creatures also “feel pain, suffer and experience stress, affection, excitement and even love..”. I agree that animals share similar feelings as us, and I believe that they should be treated in a way that they can feel comfortable and care in their surroundings. Just because animals may not be completely the same as us, that should not give the right to a human to mistreat and abuse of an animal’s life. Animals can be well treated and cared for without giving them the right to be treated as a human.

Read More

Naussbam Summary

554 Words | 3 Pages

Since entitlements, freedoms and rights are all affixed, we can then look more closely at the differences between animals, humans and their independent abilities to obtain justices and compassion. Overall, compassion between humans and animals is contrasted due to the vast differences in the species and their understanding of their rights and entitlements for both themselves and each

Read More

Peter Singer's Argument On The Moral Status Of Nonhuman Animals

1462 Words | 6 Pages

Moral Status of Nonhuman Animals Peter Singer is a utilitarian philosopher that believes we should accept the principle of equal consideration of interests. This principle states that all beings, both human and nonhuman animals should have their interests considered with the same weighting. Singer believes this principle must be adopted to avoid becoming speciesist: defined as the preference of one species over another species. He compares this practice to racism and sexism but instead of discriminating by race or sex, we discriminate by species. Through careful consideration of Singer’s argument and objections, we are able to reject his claim that a nonhuman animal has the same interests as a human.

Read More

GEH 1010 Group Presentation Analysis

691 Words | 3 Pages

Extrapolating the reasoning of why people do not see nonhumans as equal came to the idea of speciesism. The opposition’s reasoning was broken into religion, emotions, intelligences, and conservation movements. For religion, focusing on Christianity, the treatment of nonhumans are justified as they are gifts from god. Thus, they are meant to serve humans.

Read More

Lori Gruen's Argument Analysis

475 Words | 2 Pages

This concept of equality that the critique argues, introduces the treatment of marginal human beings and non human animals, but does not focus on the vast differences that currently exist between these two parties. All things considered, if these critiques hone into species differences and proportionally how to treat each individual party with respect then these critiques would all-inclusive. All things considered, these critiques remain myopic because they do not consider conflicts of interest, especially in regards to the

Read More

H. G. Moreau Analysis

1137 Words | 5 Pages

Humans give animals less moral consideration, than other humans because they believe that animals are lower on the totem pole. This is anthropocentrism because the human is ranking themselves as the most important living creature, and this unhealthy thought process leads to destruction and

Read More

Rhetorical Analysis Of All Animals Are Equal

191 Words | 1 Pages

In the article, All Animals Are Equal, author Peter Singer asserts that we ought to give the same admiration to the lives of non-human creatures as we provide for the lives of people that all creatures, human and non-human, are equal. In the article Singer argues 3 different points. Equity, moral thoughts, and moral importance. Singer starts shows equity by explaining how decency does not require measures up to rights. For example, he talks on how puppies are not equal being that they do not really know what voting is and they do not have a benefit to vote.

Read More

A Rhetorical Analysis Of All Animals Are Equal By Peter Singer

673 Words | 3 Pages

In the article All Animals Are Equal, written by Peter Singer addresses the inadequacies surrounding the rights of animals in the societies of today. Singer opens the article by presenting a scholarly parallels between the fight for gender equality, banishment of racism and the establishment of rights for “nonhumans.” In order to explain this constant set of inequalities that seem to riddle our society, Singer readily uses the term “speciesism”, which he acquired from a fellow animals rights advocator, Richard Ryder. Essentially, this term is defined by Singer as a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species. Singer claims that if this idea of speciesism

Read More

Tom Regan's Argument For Animal Rights

655 Words | 3 Pages

I will argue in favor of Regan’s principle that non-human animals should have moral rights. Tom Regan, a famous philosopher, proposed the idea “that animals have rights based on their inherent value as experiencing subjects of life” (Regan). For thousands of years, animals have been used for as pets, food, and labor. Throughout the past century, many philosophers, including Regan, have raised arguments on how we, as humans, are treating animals poorly.

Read More

Discuss The Arguments Against Phenomelogical Ethics

446 Words | 2 Pages

The main purpose of this essay is to support my opposition of animal rights by using phenomenological ethics. The meaning of this theory is the ability to see ethical dilemmas through the eyes of the “others.” To apply phenomenological ethics, one must put themselves in someone else’s, and in this instance the animal, or as many consider it, the nonhuman animal’s point of view. I will argue by explaining how phenomenological ethics can teach us to minimize speciesism, realize the pain and suffering animals go through, and why they should be considered a part of the moral community. Speciesism, as explained by Peter Singer is, “…discrimination against nonhuman animals just because of their species,” also saying that, “…it violates the principle of equal consideration-comparable interests” (548).

Read More

Peter Singer's Argument Against Vegetarianism

1019 Words | 5 Pages

Peter Singer in his essays expands on the concept of speciesism to the public and discusses how the criterion of applying rights to animals and humans is logically inconsistent. The designation of Homo Sapien being the only attribute required for moral importance is too arbitrary. Singer suggests we are to use the clearer requirement of sentience and capacity to feel pleasure and pain to assign moral importance. If this is to be universally applied non-human sentient animals deserve increased moral consideration fitting of their sentient status compared to humans. In this essay I will discuss Peter Singer’s definition of speciesism and through critical analysis look at the roll vegetarianism plays and its incompatibility with his arguments.

Read More

Singer's Objection Of Animals Rights To Non-Human-Animals

501 Words | 3 Pages

Singer argues that non-human-animals deserve moral consideration using three claims: equality is based on equal consideration; equality is a moral idea, not factual; and sentience is a prerequisite for equality. Singer demonstrates how arguments against extending rights to non-human-animals are inconsistent and thus unsupportable. He argues that membership to the species Homo sapiens is the only valid criteria that successfully excludes all non-humans and includes all humans; he cites that the difference between mentally-disabled-humans and healthy-humans is a wider gap than of certain non-human-animals. With current criteria for providing equality not being based on intelligence, or other relevant characteristics, Singer emphasizes that arguments against non-human-animals’ rights are circular with the premise: human beings have rights, and non-human-animals do not because they are not human beings.

Read More

More about Utilitarianism: The Argument From Marginal Cases

Related Topics

Open Document