In class this week we discussed the article by Tom Regan, “The Case for Animal Rights.” Many students in the classroom had difficulties debating on if eating meat is ethically right or wrong, perhaps if the animals’ living conditions changed would it be more morally justified? Regan, and I, view the answer to the question as no, it is not morally justified. It is not morally justified to use other species as a resource that is not necessary. Humans are developed to not need meat, whereas other species require meat in their diets.

It is interesting to me to think about if you had to hunt your own food, kill and skin the animal yourself, would you be able to do this morally? It’s no different than eating a steak, its just situationally different. The hard work is done for you. Would you still do it or would you just take the gatherer approach and eat fruits and vegetables?

The only situation I find myself in a moral dilemma about is Regan’s view on animal testing. Animal testing itself is still using animals as our own resources to find cures or treatments for our own species. I would suggest on testing on consenting humans, but not much testing would get done. Also, smaller animals like rats have a quicker generation time than humans. It takes about 20 years for a human to fully develop but only a few months or so for other animals. So the short generation times seems ideal for research, but if it can be morally backed is another question.

In the article titled, “People for the Ethical Treatment of Zombies (PETZ)”, Hinzman states, “the more consciously aware something is, the more rights and privileges and, therefore, the more it should be treated with dignity and respect”.  I thought this idea provides good reasoning behind animal rights.  For example, say a harmless spider (who doesn’t belong to anyone) wanders into a person’s house and they smash it.  Now say a harmless dog (who doesn’t belong to anyone) wanders into a person’s house and they smash it.  Why is the dog scenario so much worse than the spider?  According the phrase above it could be because the dog if more consciously aware than the spider.  However there is a potential flaw to this theory.  Now say the person continues to leave their door open and a harmless chimpanzee wanders into their house and again the person smashes it.  I don’t believe that people would be more upset about the chimpanzee (more cognitively advanced) than the dog which perhaps implies that there is some sort of social impact that also plays a role in the development of animal rights.

In Regan’s article “The Case for Animal Rights” he makes the claim that hunting animals and farming them for agriculture is immoral. He backs this argument by stating that all animals and people both have innate value and, therefore, should be treated equally. Personally, I agree with Regan; I do think that animals have certain rights and that using them for research and experimentation is somewhat immoral. However, one key aspect that Regan does not address in his argument is the fact that animals eat each other. If we all have the same innate value, then shouldn’t animals consuming each other also be immoral? Or, if Regan would claim that this is not immoral, then what exception applies to animal that does not apply to humans? This flaw in Regan’s argument seems to lend itself to one of two conclusions: either all animal consumption is immoral (regardless of who (human or animal) is consuming) or animal consumption is moral. To say that all animal consumption is immoral seems too far-reaching. Therefore, this seems to be a flaw in Regan’s argument. Although the methods in which some animals are farmed does seem immoral, animal consumption as a whole, in my opinion, cannot be called immoral.

Concerning our recent debates about charity, I believe we have all at least come to the agreement that in some way, shape, or form, we should help the impoverished and needy;  however, to what extent is a matter of greater discussion.  Utilitarians believe in maximizing benefits, and the moral worth of our actions is evaluated by their results.  Although idealistic, this theory has two major flaws, in my opinion, that prevent it from being a practical form of ethics to live by.  First off, I believe this theory is too demanding of the average human.  It can be assumed that most people want to help others in some way, but it can also be assumed that they would not want to sacrifice their own comfort in doing so.  For example, the human body needs only a certain number of calories, along with vitamins and nutrients, to survive, even though nearly everyone goes over that required amount.  If you are a full-fledged utilitarian, you would never allow yourself to eat more than the bare minimum – say goodbye to deserts for life – so you could donate money or food to those that are starving in the world.  I believe the psychological demand of utilitarianism is too demanding for the average human because it makes them question every single thing they purchase, knowing that the money could have instead been given to someone who was dying of hunger.  Second, since utilitarianism is concerned with results, it fails to grasp the significance of research and development, such as striving for a cure for cancer, a value that cannot be calculated.  From a strict utilitarian viewpoint, all of the money that has been donated towards cancer research could have been better spent on a more direct cause (such as world hunger) because no cure has been discovered yet.  Because Utilitarians are focused with results, which research does not always guarantee, they are more inclined to focus on issues pressing the world right now: however, this view cannot measure the value of life.  Because of research, cancer survival rates are increasing, and even those who perish from this terrible disease are able to hold onto life for a little while longer.  I agree that their are pressing needs that should be taken care of in the world, but we cannot simply avoid the future and not invest any money into fatal disease research, or environmental protection, or many other things.

Kantian ethics is apart of deontological ethics, where the act of duty and responsibility is looked upon, not the consequences of a decision. In class we talked about the issues of utilitarianism but not the possible issues of Kantian ethics. Below is a scenario found in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Deontological Ethics. The results of the situation are very large, but Kantian ethics does not consider the consequences.

“[S]uppose that unless A violates the deontological duty not to torture an innocent person (B), ten, or a thousand, or a million other innocent people will die because of a hidden nuclear device”

If person A in this situation knew the disastrous outcomes that would happen to so many innocent people, is it still his duty not to torture the person B? Since Kantian ethics does not consider the consequences, most answers to this questions would be that person A is still acting ethically and upholding his duty, but I hope there is another explanation to help support which decision to make.

Lately in class we have been discussing afterlife and how humans depend on future generations. Scheffler argues, in his paper, that without future generations life would lose purpose/meaning. He claims that we rely on the continuation of the human race to shape our world perspective. I agree with Scheffler that the future existence of humans does effect how people view life and the world; however, I do not agree that without future generations life would lose meaning. If humans had time to adjust their perspective of the world, I believe that we could still find meaning in life. It is important to note, that a key aspect of this claim is time. If we all learned that the world would end in 30 days, there would probably be widespread hysteria. On the other hand, if we learned that in 1000 years the earth would explode, I think that people would have time to alter their world perspectives and that people in future generations would not view life as hopeless, but would manage to find alternate explanations/ways to find meaning in life. This argument does not necessarily negate Scheffler’s argument because I do agree that in our current world we do rely on future generations, but I do want to point out that, in time, humans could adjust to the idea of no future generations and would find some hope and some purpose in life.

Concerning our recent assignment to go out and discover articles of philosophical value on our own regarding certain topics, I came across some very interesting information comparing several different viewpoints.  From the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy: “Suppose it is obvious that someone in need should be helped. A utilitarian will point to the fact that the consequences of doing so will maximize well-being, a deontologist to the fact that, in doing so the agent will be acting in accordance with a moral rule such as “Do unto others as you would be done by” and a virtue ethicist to the fact that helping the person would be charitable or benevolent.”  What I found most fascinating about this concept is how truly selfless the followers of virtue ethics must be.  For example, in my opinion the deontologist and utilitarian are both committing charitable actions while looking out for their own self interests and well-being – such as worrying about the ‘karma’ of the golden rule or to maximize your value of own self-worth.  Virtue Ethicists don’t care about their own well-being, but instead focus on the ‘goodness’ of the action towards the person in need.  However, this school of thought is much easier said than done.  I believe that deep down everyone wants to be a virtue ethicist, doing charity for the goodness of the action, but we are often misled by recognition.  Tying back in the idea of morality and religion, when you do charity because you are looking to maximize your chances of getting into heaven, or to be recognized by others as an outstanding volunteer and receiving some physical award, is it truly just a benevolent action?  Virtue Ethics is something to aspire towards, but I am not positive that it is totally possible.

I recently watched a motivational video that said quote,

“A lot of people become comfortable.  They stop growing.  They stop wanting anything.  They become satisfied.”

Wolf defines a meaningful life as one in which someone is actively engaged in an at least somewhat successful project.  What happens when say a person retires?  Or what if, for example, someone completed their successful project at a young age and spends the rest of their life partying?  Is their life still considered meaningful?  Do you have to be actively engaged in a project your entire life in order for your life to have meaning?

Continuing briefly off of my last post, What to do Concerning Meaningless Lives, while it may be inappropriate to tell someone their life is meaningless, it is interesting to think in the point of view of the Blob. After reading, “The Importance of the Afterlife. Seriously.” by Samuel Scheffler, it is easily compared to “The Meaning of Lives” by Susan Wolf. Scheffler claims how the afterlife for an individual is more than just one’s personal death, but what is left of the human race afterwards. If humanity was doomed to end 30 days after you die, and everyone knew, what would prevent everyone from becoming the Blob described by Wolf? Is this the same view that people who are the Blob currently have, that humanity is doomed so why try?

Most everyone’s goals and aspirations would be gone since humanity could not continue, but it is horrible to think of humanity sitting around, drinking beer, watching sitcoms, and waiting for its impending doom.

Upon reading Wolf’s essay, it has given me a new insight upon the age-old question regarding the meaning of life.  What I found most fascinating was how Wolf describes the important distinctions between the meaning of, to, and in life.  According to her essay, the meaning to life is a purely objective question regarding one’s personal views of religion and if God exists, while the meaning in life is more subjective and up for debate, which we are currently doing in class so I will glance over the subject.  Instead, I want to focus in on the meaning of life, the question that Wolf seemed edgy in answering by claiming it was too vague to be adequately discussed.  However, the problem with this question is its objectivity, so this post will be heavily opinionated despite my best attempts.  I believe the meaning to life is purely based on what you think happens after life, because despite our best attempts to avoid it, death is a part of life.  So what do we live for?  The religious spend much of their time helping ‘planning’ for the afterlife through prayer and altruistic deeds, but are they truly doing charitable work when their is an ulterior motive behind them?  Conversely, those who are more aesthetic rather would live in the moment, knowing that death could take them at any moment and any day is not life, which seems like a a better meaning to life from an objective standpoint.  However, that belief tends to make people more egotistical, I believe, because they are more focused on staying alive at other’s expenses.  So what is the actual meaning to life?  I believe it is the blend of these two ideals:  live in the moment and enjoy your limited time on Earth, but never forget about what happens after death, because if there is a God he is always watching what we do.