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
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
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
651 Words | 3 Pages

However, the nonhuman animals we often eat, are suffering due to our selfish interest. Many claim consuming these animals is a need but it is proven we can obtain these nutrients from other food sources. Another example is nonhuman animal testing. We continuously harm animals such as mice, rabbits, cats, and so forth but do not test on humans prioritizing human life over nonhuman life. These are prime examples of speciesism demonstrating the consumer is biased over their own species.

Read More
526 Words | 3 Pages

In the articles of Jeremy Rifkin, Victoria Braithwaite, and Ed Yong, there's a deep research and debate whether animals should be given the right to have human rights or not. All authors include their perspective on the issue and provide scientific evidence. However, I believe that there should be a separation of rights between animals and humans because there is no biological basis for drawing the line. Giving the right to apes, what factors exclude other mammals like dogs, cats, and birds.

Read More
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
720 Words | 3 Pages

The same criticisms extend to Utilitarianism. First, there have been many questions as to who/what utilitarianism should apply. Bentham and Mill, the two main originators of utilitarianism, would say that it applies to all beings that feel “pleasure and pain” so essentially, “sentient creatures,” which would include animals. However, as is very evident from the general negligence American policy has towards the natural world, this component of utilitarianism is often not prevalent. There are also criticisms of justice and fairness with utilitarianism.

Read More
1003 Words | 5 Pages

Upon further inspection of defining judgement, it is clear that animals possess the ability to judge, and human beings do, in fact, have a duty to them. The Utilitarian view argues that people ought to perform the action that results in the most amount of pleasure, and I would argue that because of their ability to judge and apply their experiences of pleasure and pain to human beings, animals ought to be considered when calculating this ‘greatest happiness.’ While they may not have higher cognitive abilities, they do have pleasure, pain, and the ability to remember what beings and people are the source of those experiences. If animals have the ability to experience and interpret these feelings, human beings ought to protect them and work for their best interests, especially considering the fact that they lack the ability to advocate for

Read More

More about Utilitarianism: The Argument From Marginal Cases

Related Topics

Open Document