DOCSLIB.ORG

The Ethical Egoist Case for Dietary Veganism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Ethical Egoist Case for Dietary Veganism The Ethical Egoist Case for Dietary Veganism, Or The Individual Animal and His Will to Live BO-NICOLAI GJERPEN HANSEN VEILEDER Einar Duenger Bøhn Universitetet i Agder, 2017 Fakultet for humaniora og pedagogikk Institutt for religion, filosofi og historie Bo-Nicolai Gjerpen Hansen: The ethical egoist case for dietary veganism, or the individual animal and his will to live English brief summary In this thesis in applied ethics, «The ethical egoist case for dietary veganism, or the individual animal and his will to live», I argue that taking non-human animals into consideration can be argued for from an approach of ethical egoism. I argue that from the standpoint of egoism, in most cases you would be well advised to adopt a vegan diet, that means, practically speaking, a diet rid of animal products. The thesis is divided into four main chapters. The first presents other approaches to animal ethics and the issue of dietary vegetarianism or veganism. I briefly present the standpoints of Peter Singer, Tom Regan and Mark Rowlands. Their approaches are utilitarian, rights based and principle based respectively. In the second part I present ethical egoism as a model. It differs from the approaches met in the first in that egoism places the emphasis on the moral agent himself and states that his actions should benefit himself. I present mainly some of the thinking of philosophers Max Stirner, Friedrich Nietzsche and Ayn Rand. The version of egoism I end up with is not completely similar to any of them, though especially Stirner and Rand influence it strongly. What you do should further your life and strengthen yourself. This you do by keeping a healthy lifestyle, pursuing what is valuable and taking care of the values you already have. Values can be many things, depending on context and the moral agent’s preferences and strategies. Something is not a value if it damages its possessor more than it benefits her. What is detrimental is a non-value or worthless. An important rule is never to sacrifice, that is giving up a value for something of lesser value or for something worthless to yourself. In the third part, I present the egoist case for taking animals into consideration and for dietary veganism. People are different, and a given individual might have health issues or allergies that complicate the picture, thus allowing for exceptions. Also, people might differ in what extent they are even able to form attachments to non-human animals or feel empathy for them. For them, living animals are possibly non-values. Many can, on the other hand, be expected to have the capacity for meaningful companionship with non-humans, thus making living animals true values. However, given that the meat of dead animals is unhealthy, something I make a limited case for, and given that the taste of meat can be replicated by vegetable sources, eating meat is a sacrifice, hence immoral according to egoism. For those who are actually able to enjoy the company of living animals, meat production is even more problematic as it is a practice that turns values into worthless products. It turns potential companions to unhealthy food. This leads 2 Bo-Nicolai Gjerpen Hansen: The ethical egoist case for dietary veganism, or the individual animal and his will to live to the conclusion that supporting this practice by eating meat is immoral according to egoism, as long as there are other options available. In the fourth chapter I try to anticipate some potential criticisms and responses to these. Most damaging to my argument would be if a moral agent is unable to bond with animals or see their potential value, or if a meatless diet could be shown to be less healthy than one containing meat. 3 Bo-Nicolai Gjerpen Hansen: The ethical egoist case for dietary veganism, or the individual animal and his will to live Norsk kort sammendrag I denne oppgaven innen anvendt etikk, kalt «The ethical egoist case for dietary veganism, or the individual animal and his will to live» argumenterer jeg for at hensynstagen til ikke- menneskelige dyr kan argumenteres for også fra et etisk egoistisk ståsted, og ikke minst at man ifølge etisk egoisme i de fleste tilfeller bør velge et vegansk kosthold, det vil si et kosthold uten animalske produkter. Oppgaven er delt inn i fire hoveddeler hvor jeg først presenterer viktig tidligere tenkning rundt dyreetikk og spesielt vegetarisme og veganisme. Her viser jeg frem de sentrale argumentene til filosofene Peter Singer, Tom Regan og Mark Rowlands. Disse har andre innfallsvinkler til dyreetikk enn egoisme. I den andre hoveddelen presenterer jeg etisk egoisme som modell. Etisk egoisme avviker fra både utilitarisme og tradisjonell plikt- og rettighetsetikk i og med at fokus er på at handling eller livsstil først og fremst skal komme den som handler, deg selv, til gode. Her trekker jeg også veksler på flere filosofer, men spesielt Max Stirners og Ayn Rands tenkning er viktig for oppgaven, i tillegg til Friedrich Nietzsche. Det du gjør skal gavne deg selv. Du styrker deg selv gjennom en sunn livsstil og ved å samle og ta vare på verdier. Verdier er et vidt begrep som avhenger i stor grad av kontekst og aktørens preferanser og strategi. En verdi kan ikke overveiende være skadelig for aktøren. Det som er mer skadelig enn godt, er en ikke-verdi, eller verdiløst. Et viktig imperativ er at man aldri bør ofre noe, det vil si å bytte en verdi for noe med lavere verdi, en ikke-verdi eller noe verdiløst. I den tredje delen argumenterer jeg for hvorfor man gitt etisk egoisme bør ha et vegansk kosthold. Folk er riktignok ulike, og allergier og helseproblemer kan gi spesielle utslag for individet jeg ikke får fanget opp i oppgaven. Mange vil imidlertid oppleve at de kan knytte seg emosjonelt til ikke-menneskelige dyr, og at ikke-menneskelige dyr til og med kan ha spesielle egenskaper individer fra menneskearten ikke kan. Noen mennesker vil muligens ikke kunne knytte seg til dyr. For disse vil, muligens, levende dyr ikke kunne utgjøre noen verdi. Gitt at kjøtt er usunt, noe mye tyder på, og som jeg bruker litt plass på å argumentere for, er imidlertid kjøtt også for disse menneskene en anti-verdi ettersom det kan forringe helsen deres. For mennesker som kan knytte seg til dyr og for hvem levende dyr kan tjene rollen som verdier, fremtrer praksisen med å slakte dyr for så å spise dem som enda mer verdiløs. Et potensielt verdifullt dyreindivid konverteres gjennom slakt og videreprosessering til et verdiløst produkt. Den som kunne vært verdifullt selskap blir omgjort til usunn mat. Å støtte kjøttproduksjon 4 Bo-Nicolai Gjerpen Hansen: The ethical egoist case for dietary veganism, or the individual animal and his will to live gjennom å kjøpe kjøtt, dersom man har andre valgmuligheter, er dermed umoralsk gitt etisk egoisme. I fjerde kapittel forsøker jeg å forutse mulige innvendinger og hvordan disse eventuelt kan imøtegås. Farligst for argumentet mitt her, er den moralske aktørens potensielt manglende evne til å knytte seg til, eller se verdien i, levende dyr, eller om et kjøttfritt kosthold skulle vise seg å være mindre sunt enn et kosthold som inneholder kjøtt 5 Bo-Nicolai Gjerpen Hansen: The ethical egoist case for dietary veganism, or the individual animal and his will to live Contents English brief summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 Norsk kort sammendrag ................................................................................................................................................. 4 Contents ................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 9 What is this project?..................................................................................................................................................... 9 Method and literature .............................................................................................................................................. 10 Why did I choose this topic? .................................................................................................................................. 11 On language .................................................................................................................................................................. 13 Assumptions ................................................................................................................................................................. 13 Potential biases and ethical concerns ................................................................................................................ 15 Layout ............................................................................................................................................................................. 16 Thank you ...................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Chapter 1: Ethical arguments for vegetarianism and veganism .................................................................. 17 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................
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]
  • Benevolence, Utility, and Self-Love in Hobbes and Hume Jenna Kreyche
    Stance | Volume 4 | 2011 How We Are Moral: Benevolence, Utility, and Self-Love in Hobbes and Hume Jenna Kreyche ABSTRACT: In this paper, I reconstruct Hobbes’ theory of self-love. I then examine Hume’s arguments that (i) self-love does not properly account for moral behavior and (ii) self-love is unnecessary for moral theory. I ar- gue that Hobbesian self-love can account for both of Hume’s objections. Further, I use an analysis of Hobbes’ Deliberation to show, contra Hume, that self-love does not entail a lack of intention in moral action. A Brief Overview Of Hume’s Moral Philosophy David Hume grounds his moral theory in the benevolent nature of humans, which he supports with an argument against the theory of self-love. Self- love, which can also be referred to as psychological egoism,1 “accounts for every moral sentiment by the principle of self-love,” or the ultimate concern with one’s own happiness and preservation.2 His moral theory is based on utility, which means that all social virtues are defined by their usefulness 1. Hume uses the term “self-love” in writing, but for the purposes of this paper I will use the syn- onymic term “psychological egoism” interchangeably with self-love. 2. David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, Ed. Tom L. Beauchamp, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998): 109. 27 How We Are Moral to the individual or the society. Hume posited that morality is determined by man’s naturally occurring sentiments rather than reason because pleas- ant sentiments indicate traits that are useful, such as prudence, courage, kindness, and honesty.3 These virtues inspire “our approbation and good- will” because they “contribute to the happiness of society.”4 However, our approval of these virtues, and in turn our concern with the welfare of soci- ety, is motivated by benevolence because the “principles of humanity and sympathy enter so deeply into all our sentiments.”5 In other words, man values and praises what is beneficial to him and his fellow men because of his love for humanity.
    [Show full text]
  • Indianapolis Guide
    Nutrition Information Vegan Blogs Nutritionfacts.org: http://nutritionfacts.org/ AngiePalmer: http://angiepalmer.wordpress.com/ Get Connected The Position Paper of the American Dietetic Association: Colin Donoghue: http://colindonoghue.wordpress.com/ http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/2009_ADA_position_paper.pdf James McWilliams: http://james-mcwilliams.com/ The Vegan RD: www.theveganrd.com General Vegans: Five Major Poisons Inherent in Animal Proteins: Human Non-human Relations: http://human-nonhuman.blogspot.com When they ask; http://drmcdougall.com/misc/2010nl/jan/poison.htm Paleo Veganology: http://paleovegan.blogspot.com/ The Starch Solution by John McDougal MD: Say What Michael Pollan: http://saywhatmichaelpollan.wordpress.com/ “How did you hear about us” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XVf36nwraw&feature=related Skeptical Vegan: http://skepticalvegan.wordpress.com/ tell them; Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease by Caldwell Esselstyn MD The Busy Vegan: http://thevegancommunicator.wordpress.com/ www.heartattackproof.com/ The China Study and Whole by T. Collin Campbell The Rational Vegan: http://therationalvegan.blogspot.com/ “300 Vegans!” www.plantbasednutrition.org The Vegan Truth: http://thevegantruth.blogspot.com/ The Food Revolution John Robbins www.foodrevolution.org/ Vegansaurus: Dr. Barnard’s Program for Reversing Diabetes Neal Barnard MD http://vegansaurus.com/ www.pcrm.org/health/diabetes/ Vegan Skeptic: http://veganskeptic.blogspot.com/ 300 Vegans & The Multiple Sclerosis Diet Book by Roy Laver Swank MD, PhD Vegan Scientist: http://www.veganscientist.com/
    [Show full text]
  • Animals and Ethics Fall, 2017, P
    Philosophy 174a Ethics and Animals Fall 2017 Instructor: Teaching Fellow: Chris Korsgaard Ahson Azmat 205 Emerson Hall [email protected] [email protected] Office Hours: Mondays 1:30-3:30 Description: Do human beings have moral obligations to the other animals? If so, what are they, and why? Should or could non-human animals have legal rights? Should we treat wild and domestic animals differently? Do human beings have the right to eat the other animals, raise them for that purpose on factory farms, use them in experiments, display them in zoos and circuses, make them race or fight for our entertainment, make them work for us, and keep them as pets? We will examine the work of utilitarian, Kantian, and Aristotelian philosophers, and others who have tried to answer these questions. This course, when taken for a letter grade, meets the General Education requirement for Ethical Reasoning. Sources and How to Get Them: Many of the sources from we will be reading from onto the course web site, but you will need to have copies of Singer’s Animal Liberation, Regan’s The Case for Animal Rights, Mill’s Utilitarianism and Coetzee’s The Lives of Animals. I have ordered all the main books from which we will be reading (except my own book, which is not yet published) at the Coop. The main books we will be using are: Animal Liberation, by Peter Singer. Updated edition, 2009, by Harper Collins Publishers. The Case for Animal Rights, by Tom Regan. University of California Press, 2004. Fellow Creatures: Our Obligations to the Other Animals, by Christine M.
    [Show full text]
  • 219 No Animal Food
    219 No Animal Food: The Road to Veganism in Britain, 1909-1944 Leah Leneman1 UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH There were individuals in the vegetarian movement in Britain who believed that to refrain from eating flesh, fowl, and fish while continuing to partake of dairy products and eggs was not going far enough. Between 1909 and 1912, The Vegetarian Society's journal published a vigorous correspond- ence on this subject. In 1910, a publisher brought out a cookery book entitled, No Animal Food. After World War I, the debate continued within the Vegetarian Society about the acceptability of animal by-products. It centered on issues of cruelty and health as well as on consistency versus expediency. The Society saw its function as one of persuading as many people as possible to give up slaughterhouse products and also refused journal space to those who abjured dairy products. The year 1944 saw the word "vergan" coined and the breakaway Vegan Society formed. The idea that eating animal flesh is unhealthy and morally wrong has been around for millennia, in many different parts of the world and in many cultures (Williams, 1896). In Britain, a national Vegetarian Society was formed in 1847 to promulgate the ideology of non-meat eating (Twigg, 1982). Vegetarianism, as defined by the Society-then and now-and by British vegetarians in general, permitted the consumption of dairy products and eggs on the grounds that it was not necessary to kill the animal to obtain them. In 1944, a group of Vegetarian Society members coined a new word-vegan-for those who refused to partake of any animal product and broke away to form a separate organization, The Vegan Society.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethics, Agency & Love
    Ethics, Agency & Love for Bryn Browne Department of Philosophy, University of Wales Lampeter Speciesism - Arguments for Whom? Camilla Kronqvist Please do not quote without permission! Since the publication of Animal Liberation by Peter Singer in 1975 there has been an upshot of literature concerned with the moral standing of animals and our attitudes and reactions towards them. The starting point for most of these discussions can mainly be found in the notion of speciesism, a term that originally was introduced by Richard Ryder but that has become more widely spread with the writings of Peter Singer. It is also Singer that I am discussing in this essay although many other philosophers have brought forward similar ideas. The idea that lies behind this notion is basically that we as human beings have prejudices in our attitudes towards animals and that we discriminate against them on grounds that are unacceptable in a society that stresses the importance of equality. The line that we draw between human beings, or members of the species Homo Sapiens as Singer prefers to put it, and animals is as arbitrary as the lines that previously have been drawn on the basis of sex or race. It is not a distinction that is based on any factual differences between the species but simply on the sense of superiority we seem to pride ourselves in with regard to our own species. Allowing the species of a being to be the determining factor for our ethical reactions towards is, according to the argument, as bad as letting sex or race play the same part.
    [Show full text]
  • Selfish Genes and Social Darwinism
    Selfish Genes and Social Darwinism MARY MIDGLEY Exchanging views in Philosophy with a two-year time-lag is getting rather like conversation with the Andromeda Nebula. I am distressed that my reply to Messrs Mackie and Dawkins, explaining what made me write so crossly about The Selfish Gene, has been so long delayed.1 Mr Mackie's sudden death in December i98i adds a further dimension to this distress. Apology is due, not only for the delay but for the impatient tone of my article. One should not lose one's temper, and doing so always makes for confused argument. My basic objections remain. But I certainly ought to have expressed them more clearly and temperately. This reply must, I think, concentrate simply on explaining the background of reasons why these objections matter. I shall have very little to say directly about Mackie's argument, since it was chiefly just a very fair and sympathetic exposition of Dawkin's views. Mackie himself drew only very modest conclusions from them, and avoided the excesses of psychological egoism, as of course he also does in his own book. But this still leaves two serious worries. In the first place I do not think that The Selfish Gene itself, on any natural interpretation, does avoid those excesses. In the second, even when modestly interpreted, I think it is far too one-sided a book to be picked out and used in isolation for the re-education of moral philosophy in the biological facts of life. My own central philosophic concern-which I think Dawkins shares- is to make possible a more realistic attitude about the place of Homo sapiens in the world.
    [Show full text]
  • An Ahimsa Crisis: You Decide
    AN AHIMSA CRISIS: YOU DECIDE An Ahimsa Crisis: You Decide 1 2Prakrit Bharati academy,An Ahimsa Crisis: Jai YouP Decideur Prakrit Bharati Pushpa - 356 AN AHIMSA CRISIS: YOU DECIDE Sulekh C. Jain An Ahimsa Crisis: You Decide 3 Publisher: * D.R. Mehta Founder & Chief Patron Prakrit Bharati Academy, 13-A, Main Malviya Nagar, Jaipur - 302017 Phone: 0141 - 2524827, 2520230 E-mail : [email protected] * First Edition 2016 * ISBN No. 978-93-81571-62-0 * © Author * Price : 700/- 10 $ * Computerisation: Prakrit Bharati Academy, Jaipur * Printed at: Sankhla Printers Vinayak Shikhar Shivbadi Road, Bikaner 334003 An Ahimsa Crisis: You Decide 4by Sulekh C. Jain An Ahimsa Crisis: You Decide Contents Dedication 11 Publishers Note 12 Preface 14 Acknowledgement 18 About the Author 19 Apologies 22 I am honored 23 Foreword by Glenn D. Paige 24 Foreword by Gary Francione 26 Foreword by Philip Clayton 37 Meanings of Some Hindi & Prakrit Words Used Here 42 Why this book? 45 An overview of ahimsa 54 Jainism: a living tradition 55 The connection between ahimsa and Jainism 58 What differentiates a Jain from a non-Jain? 60 Four stages of karmas 62 History of ahimsa 69 The basis of ahimsa in Jainism 73 The two types of ahimsa 76 The three ways to commit himsa 77 The classifications of himsa 80 The intensity, degrees, and level of inflow of karmas due 82 to himsa The broad landscape of himsa 86 The minimum Jain code of conduct 90 Traits of an ahimsak 90 The net benefits of observing ahimsa 91 Who am I? 91 Jain scriptures on ahimsa 91 Jain prayers and thoughts 93
    [Show full text]
  • MAC1 Abstracts – Oral Presentations
    Oral Presentation Abstracts OP001 Rights, Interests and Moral Standing: a critical examination of dialogue between Regan and Frey. Rebekah Humphreys Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom This paper aims to assess R. G. Frey’s analysis of Leonard Nelson’s argument (that links interests to rights). Frey argues that claims that animals have rights or interests have not been established. Frey’s contentions that animals have not been shown to have rights nor interests will be discussed in turn, but the main focus will be on Frey’s claim that animals have not been shown to have interests. One way Frey analyses this latter claim is by considering H. J. McCloskey’s denial of the claim and Tom Regan’s criticism of this denial. While Frey’s position on animal interests does not depend on McCloskey’s views, he believes that a consideration of McCloskey’s views will reveal that Nelson’s argument (linking interests to rights) has not been established as sound. My discussion (of Frey’s scrutiny of Nelson’s argument) will centre only on the dialogue between Regan and Frey in respect of McCloskey’s argument. OP002 Can Special Relations Ground the Privileged Moral Status of Humans Over Animals? Robert Jones California State University, Chico, United States Much contemporary philosophical work regarding the moral considerability of nonhuman animals involves the search for some set of characteristics or properties that nonhuman animals possess sufficient for their robust membership in the sphere of things morally considerable. The most common strategy has been to identify some set of properties intrinsic to the animals themselves.
    [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]
  • An Inquiry Into Animal Rights Vegan Activists' Perception and Practice of Persuasion
    An Inquiry into Animal Rights Vegan Activists’ Perception and Practice of Persuasion by Angela Gunther B.A., Simon Fraser University, 2006 Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in the School of Communication ! Angela Gunther 2012 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Summer 2012 All rights reserved. However, in accordance with the Copyright Act of Canada, this work may be reproduced, without authorization, under the conditions for “Fair Dealing.” Therefore, limited reproduction of this work for the purposes of private study, research, criticism, review and news reporting is likely to be in accordance with the law, particularly if cited appropriately. Approval Name: Angela Gunther Degree: Master of Arts Title of Thesis: An Inquiry into Animal Rights Vegan Activists’ Perception and Practice of Persuasion Examining Committee: Chair: Kathi Cross Gary McCarron Senior Supervisor Associate Professor Robert Anderson Supervisor Professor Michael Kenny External Examiner Professor, Anthropology SFU Date Defended/Approved: June 28, 2012 ii Partial Copyright Licence iii Abstract This thesis interrogates the persuasive practices of Animal Rights Vegan Activists (ARVAs) in order to determine why and how ARVAs fail to convince people to become and stay veg*n, and what they might do to succeed. While ARVAs and ARVAism are the focus of this inquiry, the approaches, concepts and theories used are broadly applicable and therefore this investigation is potentially useful for any activist or group of activists wishing to interrogate and improve their persuasive practices. Keywords: Persuasion; Communication for Social Change; Animal Rights; Veg*nism; Activism iv Table of Contents Approval ............................................................................................................................. ii! Partial Copyright Licence .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ethical Theory and Sexual Ethics
    Ethical Theory and Sexual Ethics Ideas about ethics, and what counts as an ethical choice, have seen rapid change. This set of notes will suggest that there is a movement towards an evolutionary understanding of morality and outline what that emergent framework is beginning to look like for human sexual relationships. Western culture carries the last vestiges of a religious framework but increasingly there is broad acceptance of the view that Laws and morality are a human construct. Utilitarian frameworks are well established and provide a secular mechanism for moral decision-making. Utilitarianism Utilitarian frameworks all argue that morality is a rational activity and can be calculated. All maintain that the morally right course of action is that which leads to the greatest good for the greatest number. For Bentham, like Epicurus, the good is defined by actions that maximize the quantity of pleasure and minimize the quantity of pain. While Mill and Singer make minor adjustments to this they agree that morality depends on the accurate prediction of consequences, and that the end justifies the means. Morality can be, and should be, calculated and all people involved count equally for the purpose of the calculation. Bentham and Mill recommend that we pursue our natural inclinations towards pleasure (and against pain) and that this is where morality lies. In a number of ways the recommendations that flow from this ethical framework cohere with the values of the Christian civilisation from which it emerged. The desirability of ultimate and equal respect for persons is at the heart of the Gospel message.
    [Show full text]