Department of Philosophy Texas AampM University g varnertamuedu httpphilosophytamuedugary URL The Acrocats on Colbert Pets Companion Animals and Domesticated Partners ID: 581780
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "1 Gary Varner" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
1
Gary VarnerDepartment of PhilosophyTexas A&M Universityg-varner@tamu.eduhttp://philosophy.tamu.edu/~gary/ URL: The Acrocats on Colbert
“Pets, Companion Animals, and Domesticated Partners” Slide2
2
Gary VarnerDepartment of PhilosophyTexas A&M Universityg-varner@tamu.eduhttp://philosophy.tamu.edu/~gary/ “Pets, Companion Animals, and Domesticated Partners” Slide3
3
“Pets, Companion Animals, and Domesticated Partners,” in Ethics for Everyday (McGraw Hill, 2002). “Pets, Companion Animals, and Domesticated Partners” Slide4
4
“Pets, Companion Animals, and Domesticated Partners,” in Ethics for Everyday (McGraw Hill, 2002). “A Two-level Utilitarian Perspective on Companion Animals,” in People and Pets (Oxford University Press, forthcoming). “Pets, Companion Animals, and Domesticated Partners” Slide5
5
Personhood, Ethics, and Animal Cognition: Situating Animals in Hare’s Two-Level Utilitarianism(Oxford University Press, 2012) R.M. Hare(1919-2002)
“Pets, Companion Animals, and Domesticated Partners” Slide6
6
Personhood, Ethics, and Animal Cognition: Situating Animals in Hare’s Two-Level Utilitarianism(Oxford University Press, 2012)“Pets, Companion Animals, and Domesticated Partners” Slide7
7
Personhood, Ethics, and Animal Cognition: Situating Animals in Hare’s Two-Level Utilitarianism(Oxford University Press, 2012)Sustaining Animals: Envisioning Humane, Sustainable Communities (Oxford University Press, 20??)
“Pets, Companion Animals, and Domesticated Partners” Slide8
8
Describe two-level utilitarianism.Define three categories of pets.Is pet-keeping justifiable in utilitarian terms?Strategies for improving our relationships with pets within two-level utilitarianism: changing laws, codes of professional ethics, and our “common morality.” “Pets, Companion Animals, and Domesticated Partners” Slide9
9
Describe two-level utilitarianism.“Pets, Companion Animals, and Domesticated Partners” Slide10
10
Two-level utilitarianism“Utilitarian”“In quasi-deprecating use: Having regard to mere utility rather than beauty, amenity, etc.”(Oxford English Dictionary) Slide11
11
Two-level utilitarianism“Utilitarian”“In quasi-depreciative use: Having regard to mere utility rather than beauty, amenity, etc.”“Of philosophy, principles, etc.: … regards the greatest good or happiness of the greatest number as the chief consideration or rule of morality.”(Oxford English Dictionary) Slide12
12
Two-level utilitarianism“Utilitarianism”“The greatest good for the greatest number.” “The right thing to do is whatever will maximize aggregate happiness under the circumstances.” Slide13
13
Two-level utilitarianism“Utilitarianism”“The greatest good for the greatest number.” “The right thing to do is whatever will maximize aggregate happiness under the circumstances.” “Utilitarianism =df the view that you should arrange things so as to maximize aggregate happiness.” Slide14
14
Act utilitarianism = The right thing to do is whatever will maximize aggregate happiness under the circumstances. . Two-level utilitarianismSlide15
15
Act ethical egoism = The right thing to do is whatever will maximize my own happiness under the circumstances. . Two-level utilitarianismSlide16
16
Two-level ethical egoism = One “critical level” principle: Arrange things so that my own happiness will be maximized. Many “intuitive level system” rules: Don’t think like an egoist all the time. Put your loved ones’ interests ahead of your own. &c.. Two-level utilitarianismSlide17
17
Two-level utilitarianism = One “critical level” principle: Arrange things so that aggregate happiness is maximized. Many “intuitive level system” rules: Don’t think like a utilitarian all the time. &c.. Two-level utilitarianismSlide18
18
Why utilitarians need “intuitive level” rules: We would miss an important component of human happiness if our interpersonal relationships were always mediated by utilitarian calculations. . Two-level utilitarianismSlide19
19
Why utilitarians need “intuitive level” rules: We would miss an important component of human happiness if our interpersonal relationships were always mediated by utilitarian calculations. Extremely detailed information needed to apply the theory correctly.. Two-level utilitarianismSlide20
20
Why utilitarians need “intuitive level” rules: We would miss an important component of human happiness if our interpersonal relationships were always mediated by utilitarian calculations. Extremely detailed information needed to apply the theory correctly.Humans have limited data-processing abilities and we make mistakes.. Two-level utilitarianismSlide21
21
Why utilitarians need “intuitive level” rules: We would miss an important component of human happiness if our interpersonal relationships were always mediated by utilitarian calculations. Extremely detailed information needed to apply the theory correctly.Humans have limited data-processing abilities and we make mistakes.We are prone to “cook the data” in favor of self-interest.. Two-level utilitarianismSlide22
22
Why utilitarians need “intuitive level” rules: We would miss an important component of human happiness if our interpersonal relationships were always mediated by utilitarian calculations. Extremely detailed information needed to apply the theory correctly.Humans have limited data-processing abilities and we make mistakes.We are prone to “cook the data” in favor of self-interest.. Two-level utilitarianismSlide23
23
Categories of ILS / “intuitive level” rules: Laws Codes of professional ethics“Common morality” Two-level utilitarianismSlide24
24
Categories of ILS / “intuitive level” rules: Laws Codes of professional ethics“Common morality” A type of pragmatism Two-level utilitarianismSlide25
25
Describe two-level utilitarianism.Define three categories of pets.“Pets, Companion Animals, and Domesticated Partners” Slide26
26
Three categories of petsDeborah Barnbaum (1998), “Why Tamagotchis Are Not Pets”: 1. A pet’s keeper feels affection for it (although not necessarily vice-versa), 2. A pet leads a very different life than its keeper, 3. A pet lives in an area significantly under the keeper’s control,
and
4
. A pet depends on its keeper to have various important interests
met.
.
(
Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children
13: 41-43.)Slide27
27
Three categories of petsDeborah Barnbaum (1998), “Why Tamagotchis Are Not Pets”: 1. A pet’s keeper feels affection for it (although not necessarily vice-versa), 2. A pet leads a very different life than its keeper, 3. A pet lives in an area significantly under the keeper’s control,
and
4
. A pet depends on its keeper to have various important interests
met.
.
(
Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children
13: 41-43.)Slide28
28
Three categories of petsDeborah Barnbaum (1998), “Why Tamagotchis Are Not Pets”: 1. A pet’s keeper feels affection for it (although not necessarily vice-versa), 2. A pet leads a very different life than its keeper, 3. A pet lives in an area significantly under the keeper’s control, and
4
. A pet depends on its keeper to have various important interests
met.
.
(
Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children
13: 41-43.)Slide29
29
Three categories of petsDeborah Barnbaum (1998), “Why Tamagotchis Are Not Pets”: 1. A pet’s keeper feels affection for it (although not necessarily vice-versa), 2. A pet leads a very different life than its keeper, 3. A pet lives in an area significantly under the keeper’s control, and
4
. A pet depends on its keeper to have various important interests
met.
.
(
Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children
13: 41-43.)Slide30
30
Three categories of petsDeborah Barnbaum (1998), “Why Tamagotchis Are Not Pets”: 1. A pet’s keeper feels affection for it (although not necessarily vice-versa), 2. A pet leads a very different life than its keeper, 3. A pet lives in an area significantly under the keeper’s control, and 4. A pet depends on its keeper to have various important interests met.
.
(
Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children
13: 41-43.)Slide31
31
Three categories of pets“Companion animal” =df a pet that receives the affection and care owners normally give pets, but that also has significant social interaction with its owner and would voluntarily choose to stay with the owner, in part for the sake of the companionship.Slide32
32
Three categories of pets “Domesticated partner” =df a companion animal that works with humans in ways that emphasize and exercise the pet’s mental and/or physical faculties in a healthy way.Slide33
33
Three categories of pets“Companion animal” =df … “Domesticated partner” =df … “Mere pet” =df a pet (by Barnbaum’s criteria) that is neither a companion animal nor a domesticated partner. Slide34
34
Domesticated partners?Slide35
35
Domesticated partners?Slide36
36
Domesticated partners?Slide37
37
Companion animals?Slide38
38
Companion animals?Slide39
39
Mere pets?Slide40
40
Mere pets?Slide41
41
My Stipulative Definitions“Companion animal” =df a pet that receives the affection and care owners normally give pets, but that also has significant social interaction with its owner and would voluntarily choose to stay with the owner, in part for the sake of the companionship.“Domesticated partner” =df a companion animal that works with humans in ways that emphasize and exercise the pet’s mental and/or physical faculties in a healthy way.
“Mere pet” =
df
a pet that is neither a companion
animal nor a domesticated partner. Slide42
42
Describe two-level utilitarianism.Define three categories of pets.Is pet-keeping justifiable in utilitarian terms?“Pets, Companion Animals, and Domesticated Partners” Slide43
43
Three empirical considerations:The utilitarian justification of pet-keepingSlide44
44
Three empirical considerations:There is some evidence that keeping pets improves people’s lives. The utilitarian justification of pet-keepingSlide45
45
Three empirical considerations:There is some evidence that keeping pets improves people’s lives. That a pet meets my stipulative definition of a “companion animal” is prima facie evidence that it benefits from its relationship with its human keeper.The utilitarian justification of pet-keepingSlide46
46
Three empirical considerations:There is some evidence that keeping pets improves people’s lives. That a pet meets my stipulative definition of a “companion animal” is prima facie evidence that it benefits from its relationship with its human keeper. For pets that meet my stipulative definition of a “domesticated partner,” behavioral problems, which are the leading cause of strife in humans’ relationships with pets, can be more effectively controlled, and humans’ relationships with them tend to be more satisfying than with pets that don’t qualify as “domesticated partners.” The utilitarian justification
of pet-keepingSlide47
47
Three conclusions I draw:The utilitarian justification of pet-keepingSlide48
48
Three conclusions I draw:The practice of pet keeping is justifiable from a utilitarian perspective.The utilitarian justification of pet-keepingSlide49
49
Three conclusions I draw:The practice of pet keeping is justifiable from a utilitarian perspective.Although keeping “mere pets” may sometimes be a good thing, it is generally better to keep companion animals than to keep mere pets. The utilitarian justification of pet-keepingSlide50
50
Three conclusions I draw:The practice of pet keeping is justifiable from a utilitarian perspective.Although keeping “mere pets” may sometimes be a good thing, it is generally better to keep companion animals than to keep mere pets. It is generally good for pet keepers to develop, to the extent practicable, a domestic partnership with their pets.The utilitarian justification of pet-keepingSlide51
51
The utilitarian justification of pet-keepingSlide52
52
The utilitarian justification of pet-keepingSlide53
53
The utilitarian justification of pet-keepingSlide54
54
The utilitarian justification of pet-keepingSlide55
55
The utilitarian justification of pet-keepingSlide56
56
The utilitarian justification of pet-keepingSlide57
57
Describe two-level utilitarianism.Define three categories of pets.Is pet-keeping justifiable in utilitarian terms?Strategies for improving our relationships with pets within two-level utilitarianism: changing laws, codes of professional ethics, and our “common morality.” “Pets, Companion Animals, and Domesticated Partners” Slide58
58
Categories of ILS / “intuitive level” rules: Laws Codes of professional ethics“Common morality” A type of pragmatism Two-level utilitarianismSlide59
59
Changing our laws regarding petsSlide60
60
Changing our laws regarding petsC.A. Schuppli and D. Fraser. 2000. “A Framework for Assessing the Suitability of Different Species as Companion Animals.” Animal Welfare 9:359-372.
Categorize pets and regulate accordingly:
Slide61
61
Changing our laws regarding petsC.A. Schuppli and D. Fraser. 2000. “A Framework for Assessing the Suitability of Different Species as Companion Animals.” Animal Welfare 9:359-372.
Categorize pets and regulate accordingly:
Category A:
“needs easily met”Slide62
62
Changing our laws regarding petsC.A. Schuppli and D. Fraser. 2000. “A Framework for Assessing the Suitability of Different Species as Companion Animals.” Animal Welfare 9:359-372.
Categorize pets and regulate accordingly:
Category A:
“needs easily met”
Category B:
“require significant time”Slide63
63
Changing our laws regarding petsC.A. Schuppli and D. Fraser. 2000. “A Framework for Assessing the Suitability of Different Species as Companion Animals.” Animal Welfare 9:359-372.
Categorize pets and regulate accordingly:
Category A:
“needs easily met”
Category B:
“require significant time”
Category C:
“complex or demanding requirements needing skillful and knowledgeable owners”Slide64
64
Changing our laws regarding petsC.A. Schuppli and D. Fraser. 2000. “A Framework for Assessing the Suitability of Different Species as Companion Animals.” Animal Welfare 9:359-372.
Categorize pets and regulate accordingly:
Category A:
“needs easily met”
Category B:
“require significant time”
Category C:
“complex or demanding requirements needing skillful and knowledgeable owners”
Category E:
“unsuitable as companion animals”
Slide65
65
Changing professional ethics regarding petsSlide66
66
Changing professional ethics regarding petsChanging breed standards of showing associations like the AKC and CKC.Slide67
67
Changing professional ethics regarding petsChanging breed standards of showing associations like the AKC and CKC.Ear cropping and tail docking.Slide68
68
Changing professional ethics regarding petsChanging breed standards of showing associations like the AKC and CKC.Ear cropping and tail docking.Slide69
69
Changing professional ethics regarding petsChanging breed standards of showing associations like the AKC and CKC.Ear cropping and tail docking.
“The AVMA opposes ear cropping and tail docking of dogs when done solely for cosmetic purposes … [and] encourages the elimination of ear cropping and tail docking from breed standards” (policy statements 1976 thru 2012).Slide70
70
Changing professional ethics regarding petsChanging breed standards of showing associations like the AKC and CKC.Ear cropping and tail docking.
“The AVMA opposes ear cropping and tail docking of dogs when done solely for cosmetic purposes … [and] encourages the elimination of ear cropping and tail docking from breed standards” (policy statements 1976 thru 2012).
“
The CVMA … opposes the
cropping of ears or docking of tails for cosmetic purposes, and encourages breed clubs to change breed standards so as to discourage these practices” (Dog Breeding – Position Statement 12 July 2012).
Slide71
71
Changing professional ethics regarding petsChanging breed standards of showing associations like the AKC and CKC.Ear cropping and tail docking.Closed stud books.Slide72
72
Changing professional ethics regarding petsChanging breed standards of showing associations like the AKC and CKC.Ear cropping and tail docking.Closed stud books.Breeds with congenital health problems.Slide73
73
Changing professional ethics regarding petsChanging breed standards of showing associations like the AKC and CKC.Ear cropping and tail docking.Closed stud books.Breeds with congenital health problems.Slide74
74
Changing professional ethics regarding petsChanging breed standards of showing associations like the AKC and CKC.Ear cropping and tail docking.Closed stud books.Breeds with congenital health problems.“The CVMA is concerned about breeding dogs with a known or highly suspect genetic predisposition to inherited
disorders … The
CVMA is also concerned about the continuation of breeds whose structure or characteristics inherently cause health
problems” (Dog Breeding – Position Statement 12 July 2012).
Slide75
75
Changing professional ethics regarding petsChanging breed standards of showing associations like the AKC and CKC.Slide76
76
Changing professional ethics regarding petsChanging breed standards of showing associations like the AKC and CKC.Develop a new breed of Certified Companion-Bred Dog™. Slide77
77
Changing professional ethics regarding petsChanging breed standards of showing associations like the AKC and CKC.Develop a new breed of Certified Companion-Bred Dog™. Slide78
78
Changing professional ethics regarding petsChanging breed standards of showing associations like the AKC and CKC.Develop a new breed of Certified Companion-Bred Dog™. Slide79
79
Changing our common morality regarding petsSlide80
80
Changing our common morality regarding petsChanges in common morality have greater potential for effecting change than do changes in laws and codes of professional ethics. Slide81
81
Changing our common morality regarding petsChanges in common morality have greater potential for effecting change than do changes in laws and codes of professional ethics. But it is difficult to understand why and how changes in common morality occur.Slide82
82
Changing our common morality regarding petsChanges in common morality have greater potential for effecting change than do changes in laws and codes of professional ethics. But it is difficult to understand why and how changes in common morality occur.Slide83
83
Changing our common morality regarding petsChanges in common morality have greater potential for effecting change than do changes in laws and codes of professional ethics. But it is difficult to understand why and how changes in common morality occur.Slide84
84
Changing our common morality regarding petsChanges in common morality have greater potential for effecting change than do changes in laws and codes of professional ethics. But it is difficult to understand why and how changes in common morality occur.Slide85
85
Changing our common morality regarding petsChanges in common morality have greater potential for effecting change than do changes in laws and codes of professional ethics. But it is difficult to understand why and how changes in common morality occur.Slide86
86
Changing our common morality regarding petsChanges in common morality have greater potential for effecting change than do changes in laws and codes of professional ethics. But it is difficult to understand why and how changes in common morality occur.Slide87
87
Changing our common morality regarding petsChanges in common morality have greater potential for effecting change than do changes in laws and codes of professional ethics. But it is difficult to understand why and how changes in common morality occur.Influences surely include:Popular literature, film, television, and art;Authorities’, celebrities’, and public intellectuals’ pontifications;Political discussions in the media but also around dinner tables; and
Examples set by everyday people –
just do it! Slide88
88
Describe two-level utilitarianism.Define three categories of pets.Is pet-keeping justifiable in utilitarian terms?Strategies for improving our relationships with pets within two-level utilitarianism: changing laws, codes of professional ethics, and our “common morality.” “Pets, Companion Animals, and Domesticated Partners” Slide89
89
Gary VarnerDepartment of PhilosophyTexas A&M Universityg-varner@tamu.eduhttp://philosophy.tamu.edu/~gary/ “Pets, Companion Animals, and Domesticated Partners” Slide90
90
“Feral cat” =df “a member of the species Felis catus (‘the domesticated cat’) that was born and grew to maturity without significant contact with humans.” “Pets, Companion Animals, and Domesticated Partners”