Animal law презентация

what is the nature of those duties?
Indirect theories
Direct, but unequal theories
Moral equality theories.

not morally valuable by themselves
Animals, however, are to be treated well, because otherwise the humans would suffer
It is an anthropocentric approach (based on human interests)

beings, where the inferior serves the needs of the superior
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): if a being cannot direct own actions (animals), others (humans) must do it
Food chain theory: if one eats another, it is natural that the weaker one is an instrument for the stronger one

the sake of man"
Aristotle, Politics

has subjected all things to man's power"
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

they were conscious, while they are not
This is because for Descartes there is an absolute separation between mind and body (dualism), and since animals don't have language, they cannot have a mind (or a soul)
So they are only bodies without mind, and when they are destroyed they don't really suffer. Their screams of pain and terror are just like the noise produced by a machine that breaks

back of own desires, so only humans have will.
Animals do not have will, neither bad or good, so they do not have any intrinsic value.
Animals are to be treated well only because otherwise the human being is harmed.
Our duties towards animals are merely indirect duties towards humanity.

direct duties. Animals are not self-conscious, and are there merely as a means to an end. That end is man"
Kant, Lectures on ethics

one in which the rules governing that society are rules that would be chosen by individuals from behind a veil of ignorance. The veil of ignorance is a hypothetical situation in which individuals do not know any particular details about themselves, such as their sex, age, race, intelligence, abilities, etc.

person's goal is to select the rules that will benefit them the most.
Since they do not know who exactly they are, they will not choose rules that benefit any one individual, or segment of society, over another (since they may find themselves to be in the harmed group).
Instead, they will choose rules that protect, first and foremost, rational, autonomous individuals.
Can this theory be applied to our relations with animals?

contractualist theory to animals has an important limitation:

The contractors are self-interested, but do not know who they are: so they will accept rules that protect rational individuals.
However, the contractors know enough about themselves to know that they are not animals.
They will not adopt rules that give special protection to animals, therefore, since this would not further their self-interest.
The result is that rational human beings will be directly protected, while animals will not.

not equal to human beings:
Only human beings have rights
Only human beings are rational, autonomous and self-conscious
Only human beings can act morally
Only human beings are part of moral community

it has moral status
(Most) animals are sentient
Therefore (most) animals have direct moral status

rights
Only human beings are rational, autonomous and self-conscious
Only human beings can act morally
Only human beings are part of moral community

Regan, b. 1938)
influenced by Kant

they talk? but, Can they suffer?”

Jeremy Bentham, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation

that human beings possess some particular quality (-es) P (Consciousness? Memory? Self-judgment? Creativity? Abstract thinking?)
Some human beings lack P
Many animals have P

Therefore:

Not every human being should be a subject of moral consideration (impossible) or
Animals deserve moral consideration.

doesn’t focus his theory on rationality as the condition for respect
The proof is that we respect human beings who are not rational (like infants or the mentally impaired)
Every living being has intrinsic value because it has a life and the right to live it
Every being who has an intrinsic value deserves respect and cannot be used as an instrument for others
Marginal cases

that:
if animals do not have direct moral status, then neither do such human beings as infants, the senile, the severely cognitively disabled, and other such "marginal cases" of humanity.
Since we believe that these sorts of human beings do have direct moral status, there must be something wrong with any theory that claims they do not.