DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 15 – Environmental Ethics General Overview

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter 15 – Environmental Ethics General Overview Chapter 15 – Environmental Ethics General Overview In this final chapter our obligations to the larger non-human community and the rights that that community may have are explored, especially practices involving animals whether it be for food, sport, amusement, etc. What justifies our treatment of animals in this regard since many of our practices involve inflicting pain, injury and death? Are animals simply inferior to humans – like sticks and stones as Plato said, or soulless machines according to Descartes- such that the pain we inflict requires little or no justification? How important is the possession of reason? Are we separate from and superior to nature or inextricably bound to it? Appropriately, this final chapter raises again some of the hardest questions of moral philosophy. Class Suggestions There are numerous exercises that you might get students to engage in here for this topic. One popular scenario is to get students to imagine they have landed on a new planet with all kinds of things that they don’t recognize flying, crawling and swimming. Some creatures appear to be very intelligent. Their food supplies have run out and desperation will soon set in. They will have to decide what they can eat and what they can’t. What criteria do they use? This kind of activity will bring out assumptions that are often hidden, perhaps by the fact that animals seem to be almost invisibly embedded in every part of our lives and that their use is taken for granted. Other activities might include getting students to work out a hierarchy of animals based on categories like ‘Kill /destroy it because it interferes with your quality of life’ or ‘Own it or deprive it of its freedom without any reason’, ‘Perform harmful experiments on it’, etc. This will bring out many of our inconsistencies regarding how we treat animals, as would a careful consideration of pets and why this particular group of animals are given special rights and to which we, as ‘owners’, have special obligations. 54 Chapter 15 – Environmental Ethics Key Concepts: Nature, Civilization, Speciesism, Sentientism, Wholism, Vegetarianism, Vegan, Environment, Hunting, Factory Farming, Dualism, Dominion, Animal Rights, Reason, Interests, Experimentation, Pets, Zoos, Endangered Species. Key Questions: 1. What justifies our treatment of animals? Reason, intelligence, superior nature, rights? Critically examine the basis for our practices here. 2. Is hunting justified any longer? Explore grounds for and against and try to justify your own view. 3. Is experimentation on animals morally acceptable in some/all cases? Explain and defend your view. 4. ‘The environment and the animals in it are a resource for human beings to use as they see fit.’ Do you agree with this claim? Say why or why not and carefully define and justify the principles that ground your view. 5. Does nature have any value over and above the value we confer upon it? Explore in relation to the models of dominion and wholism. Chapter Summary Nature and Morality What relations are there between nature and morality? What obligations do we have to nature? Environmental ethical issues There are a number of issues of concern: 1. Waste and destruction of natural resources 2. Exploiting, misusing and polluting the environment 3. Exploiting, abusing and destroying animals a. Hunting and destroying animals for food and body parts b. Raising animals for food c. Using animals for scientific experimentation d. Endangerment, decimation and extinction of animal species Our attitudes toward nature and what lies behind it Native Americans one with nature Eastern religions also see nature and humans as unified. Western view more dualistic. Two sources of dualism. 1. Platonic dualism 2. Judeo-Christian Rise of science and scientific progress Sources of dualism also give rise to science, technology, industrialization and the encroachment of nature by civilization. Arguments for use and exploitation of natural environment 1. Dominance over nature a. Religious basis b. Natural order/evolution 2. Human reasoning versus nature as blind and non-reasoning 3. Civilization more important than nature 4. Moral rights and obligations – humans more important Arguments against the use and exploitation of nature 1. Monistic wholism versus dominance and domination? 2. Reasoning should not separate humans from nature and nature should not be subordinated to civilization 55 Moderate position Treat nature with respect but still (carefully) use nature for human good. Criteria for animal rights 1. Life and being alive 2. Having interests 3. Attributes of soul, mind and feelings 4. Reason Ways of dealing with animal rights 1. Vegetarianism 2. Sentimentalism 3. Wholism Use of animals for food Ways of raising animals for food 1. Factory farming 2. Free range Vegetarianism – opposed to 1. Carnivores – whichever method delivers best quality meat Moderate position – condone animals as food, except by clearly cruel methods like factory farming Use of animals for experimentation Arguments for Scientific and medical purposes. Arguments against Not justified in making an animal suffer for human benefit Moderate position Not opposed to experiments but they must be absolutely necessary Killing animals for sport It should be allowed 1. An ancient activity of man 2. Controlling animal population 3. Desire for animal meat and other body parts It should not be allowed 1. An ancient activity no longer required 2. The animal population will control itself 3. No further need for wild game or body parts Moderate position 1. Killing for sport allowed on a limited basis 2. No reason to kill wild animals for meat 3. No killing animals for body parts and skins Protection of endangered species 1. Irreverence for segment of life is irreverence for all life 2. Species are beautiful and should be preserved for all 3. All animals contribute to balance of nature Conclusion Is it possible to achieve a balance between the progress of civilization and natural environment? 56.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Derogatory Discourses of Veganism and the Reproduction of Speciesism in UK 1 National Newspapers Bjos 1348 134..152
    The British Journal of Sociology 2011 Volume 62 Issue 1 Vegaphobia: derogatory discourses of veganism and the reproduction of speciesism in UK 1 national newspapers bjos_1348 134..152 Matthew Cole and Karen Morgan Abstract This paper critically examines discourses of veganism in UK national newspapers in 2007. In setting parameters for what can and cannot easily be discussed, domi- nant discourses also help frame understanding. Discourses relating to veganism are therefore presented as contravening commonsense, because they fall outside readily understood meat-eating discourses. Newspapers tend to discredit veganism through ridicule, or as being difficult or impossible to maintain in practice. Vegans are variously stereotyped as ascetics, faddists, sentimentalists, or in some cases, hostile extremists. The overall effect is of a derogatory portrayal of vegans and veganism that we interpret as ‘vegaphobia’. We interpret derogatory discourses of veganism in UK national newspapers as evidence of the cultural reproduction of speciesism, through which veganism is dissociated from its connection with debates concerning nonhuman animals’ rights or liberation. This is problematic in three, interrelated, respects. First, it empirically misrepresents the experience of veganism, and thereby marginalizes vegans. Second, it perpetuates a moral injury to omnivorous readers who are not presented with the opportunity to understand veganism and the challenge to speciesism that it contains. Third, and most seri- ously, it obscures and thereby reproduces
    [Show full text]
  • Vegetarianism and World Peace and Justice
    Visit the Triangle-Wide calendar of peace events, www.trianglevegsociety.org/peacecalendar VVeeggeettaarriiaanniissmm,, WWoorrlldd PPeeaaccee,, aanndd JJuussttiiccee By moving toward vegetarianism, can we help avoid some of the reasons for fighting? We find ourselves in a world of conflict and war. Why do people fight? Some conflict is driven by a desire to impose a value system, some by intolerance, and some by pure greed and quest for power. The struggle to obtain resources to support life is another important source of conflict; all creatures have a drive to live and sustain themselves. In 1980, Richard J. Barnet, director of the Institute for Policy Studies, warned that by the end of the 20th century, anger and despair of hungry people could lead to terrorist acts and economic class war [Staten Island Advance, Susan Fogy, July 14, 1980, p.1]. Developed nations are the largest polluters in the world; according to Mother Jones (March/April 1997, http://www. motherjones.com/mother_jones/MA97/hawken2.html), for example, Americans, “have the largest material requirements in the world ... each directly or indirectly [using] an average of 125 pounds of material every day ... Americans waste more than 1 million pounds per person per year ... less than 5 percent of the total waste ... gets recycled”. In the US, we make up 6% of the world's population, but consume 30% of its resources [http://www.enough.org.uk/enough02.htm]. Relatively affluent countries are 15% of the world’s population, but consume 73% of the world’s output, while 78% of the world, in developing nations, consume 16% of the output [The New Field Guide to the U.
    [Show full text]
  • Rolston on Animals, Ethics, and the Factory Farm
    [Expositions 6.1 (2012) 29–40] Expositions (online) ISSN: 1747–5376 Unnaturally Cruel: Rolston on Animals, Ethics, and the Factory Farm CHRISTIAN DIEHM University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point In 2010, over nine billion animals were killed in the United States for human consumption. This included nearly 1 million calves, 2.5 million sheep and lambs, 34 million cattle, 110 million hogs, 242 million turkeys, and well over 8.7 billion chickens (USDA 2011a; 2011b). Though hundreds of slaughterhouses actively contributed to these totals, more than half of the cattle just mentioned were killed at just fourteen plants. A slightly greater percentage of hogs was killed at only twelve (USDA 2011a). Chickens were processed in a total of three hundred and ten federally inspected facilities (USDA 2011b), which means that if every facility operated at the same capacity, each would have slaughtered over fifty-three birds per minute (nearly one per second) in every minute of every day, adding up to more than twenty-eight million apiece over the course of twelve months.1 Incredible as these figures may seem, 2010 was an average year for agricultural animals. Indeed, for nearly a decade now the total number of birds and mammals killed annually in the US has come in at or above the nine billion mark, and such enormous totals are possible only by virtue of the existence of an equally enormous network of industrialized agricultural suppliers. These high-volume farming operations – dubbed “factory farms” by the general public, or “Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)” by state and federal agencies – are defined by the ways in which they restrict animals’ movements and behaviors, locate more and more bodies in less and less space, and increasingly mechanize many aspects of traditional husbandry.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sexual Politics of Meat by Carol J. Adams
    THE SEXUAL POLITICS OF MEAT A FEMINISTVEGETARIAN CRITICAL THEORY Praise for The Sexual Politics of Meat and Carol J. Adams “A clearheaded scholar joins the ideas of two movements—vegetari- anism and feminism—and turns them into a single coherent and moral theory. Her argument is rational and persuasive. New ground—whole acres of it—is broken by Adams.” —Colman McCarthy, Washington Post Book World “Th e Sexual Politics of Meat examines the historical, gender, race, and class implications of meat culture, and makes the links between the prac tice of butchering/eating animals and the maintenance of male domi nance. Read this powerful new book and you may well become a vegetarian.” —Ms. “Adams’s work will almost surely become a ‘bible’ for feminist and pro gressive animal rights activists. Depiction of animal exploita- tion as one manifestation of a brutal patriarchal culture has been explored in two [of her] books, Th e Sexual Politics of Meat and Neither Man nor Beast: Feminism and the Defense of Animals. Adams argues that factory farming is part of a whole culture of oppression and insti- tutionalized violence. Th e treatment of animals as objects is parallel to and associated with patriarchal society’s objectifi cation of women, blacks, and other minorities in order to routinely exploit them. Adams excels in constructing unexpected juxtapositions by using the language of one kind of relationship to illuminate another. Employing poetic rather than rhetorical techniques, Adams makes powerful connec- tions that encourage readers to draw their own conclusions.” —Choice “A dynamic contribution toward creating a feminist/animal rights theory.” —Animals’ Agenda “A cohesive, passionate case linking meat-eating to the oppression of animals and women .
    [Show full text]
  • PRIMARY MESSAGE APPEAL, ATTITUDE, and DIET by NATHAN
    PRIMARY MESSAGE APPEAL, ATTITUDE, AND DIET by NATHAN SADORUS B.A., University of Colorado Colorado Springs, 2017 A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Colorado Colorado Springs in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Communication 2017 © 2017 NATHAN SADORUS ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii This thesis for the Master of Arts degree by Nathan Sadorus has been approved for the Department of Communication by Carmen Stavrositu, Chair George Cheney Maja Krakowiak Date:___12/11/17______ iii Sadorus, Nathan (M.A., Communication) Primary Message Appeal, Attitude, and Diet Thesis directed by Associate Professor Carmen Stavrositu. ABSTRACT This study examined two different appeals (rational vs. emotional) in the format of two short documentary clips aimed at influencing viewers to adopt a plant-based diet. Participants (N = 127) viewed one of two 2-minute documentary clips that explain the health benefits of adopting a plant-based diet from either a rational appeal based on scientific facts delivered by credible sources or from an emotional appeal of a personal testimonial where the speaker is overcome with emotion about the personal benefits experienced from her adoption of a plant-based diet. Participants viewed each clip and then rated the clip on perceived argument strength and attitude toward the message measures. The manipulation check of each appeal showed that each appeal was statistically significant. Therefore, the manipulation used in this study was effective. Findings indicate that neither message produced significant attitude favorability or perceived argument strength differences. An additional measure, Need for Cognition (NFC), was included to discover if people categorized as high NFC (N = 45) and low NFC (N = 33) favor one appeal over the other.
    [Show full text]
  • Reasonable Humans and Animals: an Argument for Vegetarianism
    BETWEEN THE SPECIES Issue VIII August 2008 www.cla.calpoly.edu/bts/ Reasonable Humans and Animals: An Argument for Vegetarianism Nathan Nobis Philosophy Department Morehouse College, Atlanta, GA USA www.NathanNobis.com [email protected] “It is easy for us to criticize the prejudices of our grandfathers, from which our fathers freed themselves. It is more difficult to distance ourselves from our own views, so that we can dispassionately search for prejudices among the beliefs and values we hold.” - Peter Singer “It's a matter of taking the side of the weak against the strong, something the best people have always done.” - Harriet Beecher Stowe In my experience of teaching philosophy, ethics and logic courses, I have found that no topic brings out the rational and emotional best and worst in people than ethical questions about the treatment of animals. This is not surprising since, unlike questions about social policy, generally about what other people should do, moral questions about animals are personal. As philosopher Peter Singer has observed, “For most human beings, especially in modern urban and suburban communities, the most direct form of contact with non-human animals is at mealtimes: we eat Between the Species, VIII, August 2008, cla.calpoly.edu/bts/ 1 them.”1 For most of us, then, our own daily behaviors and choices are challenged when we reflect on the reasons given to think that change is needed in our treatment of, and attitudes toward, animals. That the issue is personal presents unique challenges, and great opportunities, for intellectual and moral progress. Here I present some of the reasons given for and against taking animals seriously and reflect on the role of reason in our lives.
    [Show full text]
  • The Moral Standing of Animals: Towards a Psychology of Speciesism
    The Moral Standing of Animals: Towards a Psychology of Speciesism Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Lucius Caviola, Jim A.C. Everett, and Nadira S. Faber University of Oxford We introduce and investigate the philosophical concept of ‘speciesism’ — the assignment of different moral worth based on species membership — as a psychological construct. In five studies, using both general population samples online and student samples, we show that speciesism is a measurable, stable construct with high interpersonal differences, that goes along with a cluster of other forms of prejudice, and is able to predict real-world decision- making and behavior. In Study 1 we present the development and empirical validation of a theoretically driven Speciesism Scale, which captures individual differences in speciesist attitudes. In Study 2, we show high test-retest reliability of the scale over a period of four weeks, suggesting that speciesism is stable over time. In Study 3, we present positive correlations between speciesism and prejudicial attitudes such as racism, sexism, homophobia, along with ideological constructs associated with prejudice such as social dominance orientation, system justification, and right-wing authoritarianism. These results suggest that similar mechanisms might underlie both speciesism and other well-researched forms of prejudice. Finally, in Studies 4 and 5, we demonstrate that speciesism is able to predict prosociality towards animals (both in the context of charitable donations and time investment) and behavioral food choices above and beyond existing related constructs. Importantly, our studies show that people morally value individuals of certain species less than others even when beliefs about intelligence and sentience are accounted for.
    [Show full text]
  • Veganism Through a Racial Lens: Vegans of Color Navigating Mainstream Vegan Networks
    Portland State University PDXScholar University Honors Theses University Honors College 5-24-2018 Veganism through a Racial Lens: Vegans of Color Navigating Mainstream Vegan Networks Iman Chatila Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/honorstheses Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Chatila, Iman, "Veganism through a Racial Lens: Vegans of Color Navigating Mainstream Vegan Networks" (2018). University Honors Theses. Paper 562. https://doi.org/10.15760/honors.569 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in University Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. Running head: VEGANISM THROUGH A RACIAL LENS 1 Veganism Through a Racial Lens: Vegans of Color Navigating Mainstream Vegan Networks by Iman Chatila An undergraduate honors thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Bachelor of Science degree in University Honors and Psychology. Thesis Advisor: Charles Klein, PhD, Department of Anthropology Portland State University 2018 Contact: [email protected] VEGANISM THROUGH A RACIAL LENS 2 Table of Contents Abstract 3 Introduction 4 Background 5 Methods 7 Positionality 7 Research Questions 7 Interviews & Analysis 8 Results & Discussion 8 Demographics: Race, Age, Education, & Duration of Veganism 8 Social Norms of Vegan Communities 9 Leadership & Redefining Activism 13 Food
    [Show full text]
  • Vegetarianism and Vegan Diet - Anna-Liisa Rauma
    PHYSIOLOGY AND MAINTENANCE – Vol. II – Vegetarianism and Vegan Diet - Anna-Liisa Rauma VEGETARIANISM AND VEGAN DIET Anna-Liisa Rauma University of Joensuu, Savonlinna, Finland Keywords: vegetarian, vegan, vegetarianism, plant-rich diet, plant-based diet, plant- only diet, health promotion, food safety, health risks, dietary guidelines Contents 1. Introduction 2. Food Safety and Various Eating Patterns 3. Plant-Based Dietary Patterns and Physiological Health Promotion 4. Plant-Only Diets and Health Risk Control 5. Dietary Guidelines for Vegetarians 6. Divergence in Values About Eating Glossary Bibliography Biographical Sketch Summary Interest in a healthy lifestyle and different dietary practices that promote health continues at the same time as ecological and environmental concerns increase. Vegetarianism includes a wide variety of eating patterns, and today there is a widespread dissemination of information demonstrating that appropriately planned plant-rich omnivorous diets and plant-based lacto-vegetarian and semivegetarian diets are equally successful in promoting health. Plant-only diets without nutrient fortification do not promote health, because they do not necessarily supply adequate amounts of energy and essential nutrients such as vitamin B-12, vitamin D, calcium, and iron. Further studies are needed on the effects of plant-only diets on health, especially those diets given to children. The positive physiological health consequences of vegetarian diets include the high body antioxidant capacity of dietary antioxidants such as vitamin C, E, and beta-carotene, avoidance of overweight, low blood pressure and low serum glucose and cholesterol levels, and positively changed microflora in the colon. Epidemiological studies indicate vegetarians have lower morbidity and mortality rates from severalUNESCO chronic degenerative diseases – than EOLSS do nonvegetarians.
    [Show full text]
  • African American Vegan Starter Guide
    African American Vegan Starter Guide Simple Ways to Begin a Plant-Based Lifestyle All nutrition information presented in this guide is provided for informational purposes only. This information should not be used as a substitute or replacement for advice, diagnosis or treatment from your healthcare provider. AFRICAN AMERICAN VEGAN STARTER GUIDE Welcome I’m Tracye McQuirter, public health nutritionist, author and vegan for 30 years, and it’s my pleasure to welcome you to the African American Vegan Starter Guide, where we show you sim- ple ways to begin a plant-based lifestyle. So if you’ve been thinking about going vegan, congratulations! It can be one of the most life-changing decisions you’ll ever make. And in this guide, we’ll help you get there. I’m joined by some of my expert colleagues in the plant-based field to answer your most common questions about how to transition to vegan food. With everything from why to do it, what to eat, how to get all the nutrients you need, how to make it affordable and delicious, how to eat out and socialize as a vegan, and how to raise vegan children—we’ve got you covered. We know going vegan can seem challenging, but don’t worry. We’ve been there. In fact, in my case, I never thought I’d be a vegan. Growing up, I actually hated healthy food, especially vegetables. In 7th grade, I even wrote a petition against two of my teachers who wanted to make our class camping trip all-vegetarian. (I was overruled.) So what changed for me? During my sophomore year at Amherst College, our Black Student Union brought legendary civil rights activist and comedian Dick Gregory to campus to talk about the state of black America.
    [Show full text]
  • Cannibalism, Vegetarianism, and Narcissism
    CANNIBALISM, VEGETARIANISM, AND NARCISSISM William B. Irvine Wright State University Richar-d Huber, Treasury of Fantastic and .t!..\::1.hQ­ TOs~cal Creatu1:"i!s. New York: Dover, 1981 n this paper I will focus on two questions that people in general, and philosophers in particular, generally refuse to take seriously: Why is it morally wrong to kill people for trivial reasons (e.g., to barbecue them), and why is it morally permissible to kill animals (Le., non­ human animals) for trivial reasons? I will not attempt to answer these questions; rather, my interest is in why it is that so many people refuse to take them seriously. I will argue that when it comes to developing an "ethics of eating," the stomach all too often triumphs over the mind. PHILOSOPHY Between the Species 11 Winter 1989 CannibaliSID~ Vegetarianism~ and Narcissism 1. Two Modest Proposals have insufficient protein in their diets. I suggest that we remedy this situation - and When I teach introductory ethics, I like to make a profit at the same time - by acquir­ befuddle my students by proposing a business ing the bodies of people who died natural venture. I tell them that I have learned of the deaths and selling the meat abroad. (We existence of the Millionaire Gourmets' Club, might gain a "property right" to someone's which is willing to spend vast sums of money body by paying him today for the use of his to obtain nice fat babies to roast. I suggest body when he dies.) I point out that it is that we try to profit from my discovery by shamefully wasteful to dispose of corpses the starting a baby-ranching business.
    [Show full text]
  • ANIMAL (DE)LIBERATION: Should the Consumption of Animal Products Be Banned? JAN DECKERS Animal (De)Liberation: Should the Consumption of Animal Products Be Banned?
    ANIMAL (DE)LIBERATION: Should the Consumption of Animal Products Be Banned? JAN DECKERS Animal (De)liberation: Should the Consumption of Animal Products Be Banned? Jan Deckers ]u[ ubiquity press London Published by Ubiquity Press Ltd. 6 Windmill Street London W1T 2JB www.ubiquitypress.com Text © Jan Deckers 2016 First published 2016 Cover design by Amber MacKay Cover illustration by Els Van Loon Printed in the UK by Lightning Source Ltd. Print and digital versions typeset by Siliconchips Services Ltd. ISBN (Hardback): 978-1-909188-83-9 ISBN (Paperback): 978-1-909188-84-6 ISBN (PDF): 978-1-909188-85-3 ISBN (EPUB): 978-1-909188-86-0 ISBN (Mobi/Kindle): 978-1-909188-87-7 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/bay This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Interna- tional License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA. This license allows for copying any part of the work for personal and commercial use, providing author attribution is clearly stated. The full text of this book has been peer-reviewed to ensure high academic standards. For full review policies, see http://www.ubiquitypress.com/ Suggested citation: Deckers, J 2016 Animal (De)liberation: Should the Consumption of Animal Products Be Banned? London: Ubiquity Press. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/bay. License: CC-BY 4.0 To read the free, open access version of this book online, visit http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/bay or scan
    [Show full text]