Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
12/13/2014
Ethics and Moral Problems
Jeffrey Wood
Final
b) The concept of equality when dealing with Mills moral theory is that
Mill strives to create the most amount of good for the most amount
of people. In his view, suffering is bad, and if a little bit of pleasure
can be reduced from some in order to reduce or alleviate the
suffering of others than it should be done so. Kants view of equality
is that all rational beings should be considered as equal in their
intrinsic value as a human being. Kant doesnt believe that some
people can be more or less moral than anyone else doing the same
thing. Everyone has moral duties to do the right thing and those
duties should be equally extended to everyone. For Kant, one must
always do the right thing in a given circumstance regardless of the
consequence where Mill wants to equalize the amount of pleasure
and suffering in society.
One example where Mills Utilitarian model extends to society is
education. Even if Im not a student, part of everyones tax
great deal of pain every day, they should have the authority
over their own life to decide if the suffering is too great to carry
on living. If death is inevitable and soon, that person shouldnt
have to suffer to the very last day of their life if they dont want
to. In my arguing, it all comes down to personal choice. Because
the fetus cant listen to the reasons why its mother might get an
abortion and then agree or disagree with her, the choice falls
upon the mother to decide whether or not to carry out the
pregnancy, for its her life that is most influenced. For capital
punishment, the law nor the victim willed that their life be taken
unwillingly. This was the result of somebodies immoral choice.
This does not give us the right to take the life of the murderer
however because we still have the choice to enact justice in any
way we see fit. For the individual terminally ill and suffering,
they should have the right to choose whether or not the
suffering outweighs their will to life.
2) From the view of a global citizen, the amount of resources being
consumed by America alone in contrast to the rest of the world
is ridiculous. As Peter Singer points out, the Unites States could
elevate vast amounts of suffering from lack of basic needs
around the world at the expense of Americans minor luxuries,
but we dont. Another argument against typical American living
would be its huge annual consumption of animal meat. The
methods necessary to sustain this kind of living are highly toxic
for the environment and also extremely unpleasant for sentient
creatures. Pigs which have the mental and emotional capacities
of a mans best friend live in tight cages that prevent
movement. In Peter Singers book Animal Liberation he writes
about how pigs are lined up at CAFO in a way so the picks can
chew on the pigs tails in front of them to satisfy the inherent
need to suck. This also causes pain to the pigs in front of them
and although they may try to get away, the cages do not permit
them. Ecowatch.com posted a statistic stating 18% of the
greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere annually are
from farming animals.
While some might argue that materialism and consumerism is
something our society should value because it keeps the
economy running, I find there are many ethical issues which
result from this. First, the media is used as a method to foster
and feed insecurities about ourselves by continually comparing
how we are, to what we should be. Nothing does this better
than magazines and talk shows that tell us we havent reached
success until we have the nicest car, the biggest house, and the
largest collection of beauty supplies, complimented by
expensive cloths. All of these things can only be achieved with
money, and thus the values set forth by the media manipulates
us to work for money to satisfy our material appetites which
animal moral worth. While most meat eaters will argue saying Animals dont have
rights. this does not excuse the moral wrongs we are doing to creatures that are
able to suffer.
Because of this, Singer demands we put an end to the mass mistreatment of
animals happening every day in CAFO (Confined Animal Feeding Operations). In
places like these, the animals are treated horribly in order to maximize production.
Pigs chew each others tails in lined cages to satisfy the instinct to suck, and chicks
have the edge of their beaks melted off to prevent them from killing each other in
their tight cages. At the end of a chickens life, their put under huge amounts of
stress so their instincts kick in that make the chicken mass produce eggs when
theyre almost ready to die. And for what? Just so the average American can eat
what they want every day.
Of course Singer doesnt believe we should extend the same rights to animals as
we do to humans. The right to vote would be wasted on a pig. (Although one could
argue its wasted on many uninformed Americans also.) Instead of calling for equal
treatment of animals, Singer advocates we give equal consideration of interest. Like
education is in the higher interest of a human, its in a pigs higher interest to trot
around and roll in mud. These are necessary things for the pig to express its true
nature, to reach its full potential. Yet the pig is deprived even the freedom to stretch
because of our obsession with efficiency.
Another major reason most Americans dont see the moral value in animals is
because they are so far removed from the animal they consume, most Americans
dont even know where their meat comes from. In his essay Why Look at Animals
John Berger argues that because we no longer come in contact with animals, we are
ignorant of our inherent connection with them. Bergers thinks if one was faced with
the reality of killing the animal, many would either look away or stop eating meat. In
our current society, it doesnt help how cheap and easy it is to get a hamburger
through the drive through of a fast food joint. Berger believes if one had to butcher
animals themselves to get their meat, people might think otherwise about eating
animals.
But this isnt what Singer is concerned about. If one wants to hunt their own
meat for their family in the wild, they can. If they have a farm and raise their own
livestock, they can. Its when the animal lives its entire life in confinement without
ever being given the chance to live in accordance with its true nature are we guilty
of inflicting huge amounts of suffering for an unequal amount of pleasure.
If large amounts of suffering can end for sentient animals at the cost of
someones rib dinner, then that luxury should ethically be forfeit in order to end the
anguish of the animals being exploited by our methods of mass production. Its
clear that our value of animals as only instrumentally useful to humans is flawed. If
we follow Mills argument that what is bad is suffering, then most Americans are
guilty of supporting the mass production of suffering.