Introduction to Ethics

Photo: Justin Lubin / NBC.

Hedonists like Jeremy Bentham believe that considerations of pleasure and pain are extremely important for morality. However, such considerations apply to all sentient beings capable of experiencing pleasure and pain. Does that mean that we should consider the impact of our actions on all human and non-human animals alike? If so, are we then all morally obligated to become vegans?

In considering these questions, there are four learning outcomes. By the end of this module, you will be able to…

Reflect on the ways in which you are different from, and yet similar to, non-human animals;
Explain the notion of Speciesism and why Utilitarians believe it is morally repugnant just like other forms of bigotry;
Summarize Peter Singer’s argument that “all animals are equal”; and
State something new that you learned about Professor Gray (okay, this last one isn’t as important as the others).

Read This:

Concentration Camps for Dogs

Animal Liberation

Context

When it was originally published in 1966, “Concentration Camps for Dogs” generated massive outcry about the treatment of dogs and cats. Soon after, the United States Congress would pass the Animal Welfare Act, which provides some basic animals protections concerning animal housing and care.

Despite this, as the reading from Peter Singer notes, there seems to be limited interest in the suffering undergone by the animals we choose to eat or use for their hides. In particular, Singer considers to what extent, if any at all, that non-human animal life is worthy of our (human) moral consideration. He concludes that there is limited moral difference between human and non-human animals, arguing that, from a moral point of view, “all animals are equal” (2002, p. 1).

Reading Questions

As you read, keep these questions in mind:

Why might people get upset about how certain animals (like dogs and cats) are mistreated, while not expressing similar concerns for how other animals (like cows, pigs, and chickens) are treated?
According to Peter Singer, in what ways are humans and non-human animals different and unequal? Why does Singer believe that these differences and inequalities do not make humans morally more important than non-human animals?
In what ways does Singer claim that are all animals equal? Why are these equalities supposed to make all human and non-human animals morally equal as well? How is this a Classical Utilitarian-style argument like we have seen before in Jeremy Bentham?
What are Singer’s arguments for vegetarianism and against (certain forms of) experimentation on animals?

Although I strongly suggest that you write out brief answers to these questions, you do not have to turn in written responses. You do, however, need to be prepared to answer questions like these on module quizzes and the unit exams.