Moral Status of NonHuman Animals Curnutt Curnutt Vegetarianism Curnutt is convinced that moral arguments for vegetarianism coming from consequentialism and rightsbased theories are incapable of addressing all of the issues that have been raised ID: 357975
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Philosophy 220" 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
Philosophy 220
Moral Status of Non-Human Animals:
CurnuttSlide2
Curnutt,
“Vegetarianism”
Curnutt
is convinced that moral arguments for vegetarianism coming from consequentialism and rights-based theories are incapable of addressing all of the issues that have been raised.
He offers in replacement an argument grounded in something like the harm principle.Slide3
The Old Arguments
Consequentialists like
Matheny
will find it difficult to argue that the moral value of the consequences of actions will always require vegetarianism.
Rights talk is so complex and contentious that even Regan
doesn’t
get the job done.Slide4
NEW
Review the NEW argument for vegetarianism as it is presented on
(364c1
).
Some Notes:
Prima Facie
: on its face, presumed to be (but can be overridden).
Ultima
Facie
: on its face, (can
'
t be overridden).
Animal: vertebrate.
Clearly, (3), (5) and (6) are the key moves in the argument.Slide5
Killing Animals is Prima Facie Morally Wrong.
Harm
: something that adversely affects an individual or entity
'
s interests
Severity of harm dependent on centrality of interests. Welfare interests are those that are (a) definitive of basic well-being, and (b) because their realization is the necessary precondition of having interests.
Killing NHAs harms them, independent of any consequentialist or rights-based analyses.
Therefore, assuming harm is prima facie morally wrong, it is prima facie wrong to kill NHAs.Slide6
Animal Eating is Prima Facie Morally Wrong
On the basis of the conclusion that killing NHAs is prima facie wrong, the conclusion that eating animals is also prima facie morally wrong follows from the acknowledgment that eating them requires killing them.
A possible response comes from the recognition that rarely do animal eaters actually kill the animals they eat.
Curnutt
rejects this response on the grounds of an analogy with other forms of transfer (holocaust lamp; stolen stereo).
Benefitting from a “morally nefarious practice” makes one complicit in the immorality.
In some cases, we may have no choice. However, animal eating is clearly not one of them.Slide7
From Prima Facie to
Ultima
Facie
The last step of
Curnutt’s
argument is demonstrating that the Prima Facie wrongness of animal eating is in fact
Ultima
Facie wrongness.
Demonstrating this requires arguments to the effect that the wrongness of animal eating is not overridden by competing moral concerns.
Curnutt
identifies 4 different claims to
overridingness
Traditional/Cultural: many obviously immoral practices have been so supported, but that doesn’t change our evaluation.
Aesthetic: aesthetic appreciation is not generally regarded as sufficient to override moral concerns.
Convenience: again, the fact that something is convenient is insufficient to override its immorality.
Nutrition: NEW is not committed to veganism, just lacto-
ovo
vegetarianism.
Absent
any persuasive claim to
overringness
, the prima facie wrongness of animal eating is thus
ultima
facie.