Donald VanDeVeer: Interspecific Justice


Donald VanDeVeer critiques and examines Peter Singer’s book “Animal Liberation”. In this book, Peter Singer presents a tempting argument in favor of the view that humans have some duties toward animals. The reconstruction of this argument are the following points: All or virtually all humans beings are sentient creatures, many animals are sentient creatures, moral agents have a duty to refrain causing suffering to sentient creatures, moral agents have a duty to refrain from causing suffering to humans and animals, the interests of all sentient creatures must be given equal consideration, the imposition of suffering on animals would have to be justified by grounds of the same moral weight as those which would  be necessary to justify the imposition of suffering on humans.  Peter Singer regarded us humans as spiciest, because we allow the interests of our own species to override the greater interests of members of other species. VanDeVeer breaks down the following principles Radical specieism, extreme specieism, interest sensitive specieism, two-factor egalitarianism, and species egalitarianism. Under the principle radical specieism it is morally permissible to treat animals anyway one chooses.  Animals do not have intrinsic values or own interest, and human life is given more weight over animals. In the principle of extreme specieism a basic interest of an animal can be put to the side if a humans peripherals interests are at state. For the principle interest sensitive specieism what is permissible depends importantly on whether or not the conflicting interests are basic or not. It is morally permissible to act that an interest of the animal is subordinated for the sake of promoting a like interest of a human being. However, one cannot subordinate the basic interest of an animal for the peripheral interest of a human being. Species egalitarianism levels the playing field for both animals and humans. In this regard, humans and animals hold the same weight regarding all types of interest. Two factor egalitarianism focuses on two matters, the level or importance of interests to each being in a conflict of interest, and the psychological capacities of the parties whose interest conflict.
I agree with VanDeVeer’s belief that two-factor egalitarianism is the most practical principles that can be used to determine results in conflicting interest between humans and animals. I think taking into consideration humans mental capacities in a conflict of interest with animals is a fair point. I don’t see this as a sign of specieism because the weight of this one point in realistic terms is inconceivable to ignore. Although our love for our cats and dogs are true and heart felt, the life of an infant comparable to the life of a house pet have two vastly different capacities with that they can do.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Kenneth Goodpaster: On Moral Consideration

Kenneth Goodpaster leads us through many principles and perceptions of different philosophers to tackle the overall question, “ to whom principles of morality apply?” In order to begin to develop an answer for this question, we must first understand the framework of moral consideration, and then proceed to the application of this framework. Goodpaster presents to us distinct viewpoints on the sorts of entities that can and should receive moral consideration. He believes that neither rationality nor the capacity to experience pleasure and pain are necessary conditions on moral considerability. Instead, the simple act of being alive, for Goodpaster is a plausible criterion in terms of moral consideration. He believes that the universe of moral consideration is more complex that just individual persons and their joys ad sorrows. Goodpaster begins to draw the distinction between rights and considerability. He believes that the notion of rights are more specific that those of considerbaili...
Read more

Class #23: Heather Davis and Zoe Todd, “On the Importance of a Date, or Decolonizing the Anthropocene”

Heather Davis and Zoe Todd point out the failure of the Anthropocene, as a name to be assigned to today’s epoch. The start date that is being chosen for the Anthropocene is mid twentieth century 1964.  They are drawing connections saying that the Anthropocene, is explicitly linked to the beginnings of colonization. By linking the Anthropocene with colonization, it draws attention to the violence at its core, and calls for the consideration of Indigenous philosophies and processes of Indigenous self-governance as a necessary political corrective, alongside the self-determination of other communities and societies violently impacted by the white supremacist, colonial, and capitalist logics instantiated in the origins of the Anthropocene. They feel that the Anthropocene betrays itself in its name: in its reassertion of universality, it implicitly aligns itself with the colonial era. Heather Davis and Zoe Todd propose a 1610 start date to coincide with colonization p...
Read more

Rolston, Duties to Ecosystems

Holmes Rolston talks about the separate duties that humans and organisms owe to the ecosystem through distinct lenses. He states that the apparent harmony in ecosystems is superficial. Like business, politics, and sports ecosystems thrive on competition. He talks about how environmental necessity involves conflict, selection pressure, niche fittedness, environmental support, etc. These section pressures will routinely drive adaptation and counter adaptation; therefor the ecosystem is forcing a check on competitions by forced cooperation.   He believes us humans need to see that, an ecosystem has no centeredness at all, and we ought to simply value organisms for their evolutionary journey and purpose. The members of the biotic community have no shared needs; each species is individualistic in the sense that they are focused on the needs of their own survival.   He further explains how an ecosystem is far from being a satisfactory community, instead it is rath...
Read more