Do the pleasure and pain of non-human animals matter as much as the pleasure and pain of humans (speciesism)?
As a huge animal lover, this is a hard question for me to answer. I run to the veterinarian if any of my animals do as much as cough, and yet I do not go to the doctor’s office unless a body part is in danger. From a religious standpoint, one would say that no, non-human animals do not matter as much as humans since God made us in his image. This thinking gives us some insight on the popular thought regarding this question – human pain and pleasure matters more than the pain and pleasure of humans. I agree with this view but also side with Bentham’s writing, but would argue that it needs to come after human welfare. As humanity develops, then the pain and pleasure of other species becomes more important. I would expect the United States to have animal welfare laws, but I would not expect a nation that is unable to provide clean water to its people to require its animals to get clean water. I cannot find any argument in which the life and well-being of a human is not important than one of an animal.
Is it more important to be a good person or to perform good acts (virtue ethics vs. action ethics)?
It is more important to perform good acts than merely being a good person. While many actions begin because someone cares about them, it is not good enough to merely be. If one looks at it in the reverse way, we only punish people for acting on bad thoughts, as it would be quite inhumane to punish people for merely wishing others ill will. There is also the discussion that has to be had of nurture versus nature – people can be born not the best person and yet still commit good acts very much the same way an introvert can still go out to a social gathering. People have more of a choice over their actions than their thoughts. Additionally, action ethics can make a much larger difference than virtue ethics. A person who cares about the environment yet lacks action does not do much for the topic that they are concerned with whereas one that donated money to an environmental association, despite not being very concerned about the environment, can actually make a difference. For all of these reasons, it is much more important to perform good acts than to be a good person.
Do the ends justify the means (ends ethics vs. means ethics)?
This is a very difficult question as one must consider the extremes – for example, should we prevent people from reproducing in order to lower population growth since the environmental benefits would be large? Or should we go even further and kill people to fix the population problem? Not only do these seem unthinkable but one also has to question who is making the decision that the means are correct. After all, the Nazis believed they were improving humankind and therefore the end justified the means. Therefore I believe that there is not an answer to this question. In certain situations, such as chopping down a tree to save others as used in our reading, the ends do justify the means. However, a line has to be drawn in the means that cannot be crossed. Unfortunately that line also has to be fluid and taken into context in each situation. Therefore, in many instances ends ethics are more important than means ethics but not in every instance.
Hello, and thanks for responding to my post so I thought I would return the favor. First of all we both agree on the “do the ends justify the means” question, even though I never answered that one. We also agree on your first question, that animals pleasure and pain do matter but comes after human welfare. I only used my example of the horses because I don’t have any children, and some horse breeders spend tens of thousands of dollars on their horses because they are their children. Glad to know we share similar views on ethical issues.
Hello Karolina, I’m Gilberto. From an atheistic standpoint, since we all arise from the process of evolution we are not inherently more important than other animals on the Earth. Less developed nations tend to have a balance of what they produce as to what they consume due to their population numbers remaining fairly stable. As they grow this becomes an more prevalent problem as the ecosystem in which they are found are exploited for our own benefit. Regarding that acts are more important, I think both are equally important; I often see religious types do good simply because they think it is a ticket for heaven, something that might benefit others but is for completely selfish reasons, which I find repulsive. For the last one I think that the means and the end are also equally important, that the means require a form of sacrifice can be justified through the context of each situation.
Link to my post: http://sites.psu.edu/geog30/2016/01/31/module-3-gilberto-aponte-prats/