Preview

Animal Protection Decision-Making Based on Aesthetic Value is Undermined by Subjectivity

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1027 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Animal Protection Decision-Making Based on Aesthetic Value is Undermined by Subjectivity
Animal Protection Decision-Making Based on Aesthetic Value is Undermined by Subjectivity

In “Why Do Species Matter?”, Lilly-Marlene Russow argues that humans have a moral obligation to protect and to ensure the continued existence of things of aesthetic value which includes some but not necessarily all animals. In this paper, I will argue that the subjectivity involved in determining aesthetic value makes it an insufficient element for determining moral obligation to the protection and preservation of some animals.

Russow begins the argument by separating humanity’s obligations toward species from obligations to individual members of a species. This is to allow consistency with the disapproval of speciesism. Russow admits that by protecting individual animals we may, as a byproduct, protect some endangered species but members of the endangered species should be treated no differently than those of a flourishing one. She states that the concept of having interests, as it relates to determining value, cannot be applied to species but rather only to individual animals. Russow then uses several test cases to draw some conclusions about humanity’s confusion around what a species really is and what it is about certain species that we are trying to preserve or, in some cases, we do not care to preserve.

Next, Russow provides objections to three traditional arguments for why species do matter. The first is the argument for stewardship which Russow dismisses due to its assumption that species are valuable. The second is the argument for extrinsic value of species regarding their contribution to big picture of life. Russow objects to three different extrinsic value perspectives by 1) stating that we cannot use a specie’s declination as a sign that humans are doing something wrong because that cannot account for unforeseen events, 2) stating that not every species is required for ecological stability, and 3) denying the evolutionary chain argument because

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Powerful Essays

    Sci/207 Week 4 Lab 4 Report

    • 2956 Words
    • 12 Pages

    Biomes and Diversity. As you have learned in the readings, extinction is a natural selection process. You have also read that humans are often responsible for accelerating this process. Using at least two scholarly sources, address whether or not we as humans should be concerned with the extinction rate. Additionally, discuss whether or not humans strive to preserve representative samples of all biomes on the planet…

    • 2956 Words
    • 12 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Pol/310 Week 1

    • 627 Words
    • 3 Pages

    This work POL 310 Week 4 Discussion Questions 2 Biodiversity, Extinction, and Making Choices in Policy contains answers on the following tasks: "Some people argue that since extinctions have always taken place, they should be considered a natural process and that the current extinction rates are not a matter of concern. Others point out that the preservation of biodiversity is essential to the continuation of life on Earth and that human actions have greatly accelerated the extinction rate. Should the policy process take into consideration all competing positions…

    • 627 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In the article “A Change of Heart about Animals” by Jeremy Rifkin, behavioral scientist Stephen M. Sivy poses an important question all individuals should contemplate. “If you believe in evolution by natural selection, how can you believe that feelings suddenly appeared, out of the blue, with human beings?” The human race is not significantly different to the point where we must distinguish ourselves from alternative species. Many people seem to be under the impression that animals exist solely to serve our intentions, regardless of the detrimental effects they undergo. We as humans tend to classify ourselves to be at the top of the species hierarchy due to our moral compass and superior intellect.…

    • 518 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Defenders of nature became divided between fervent “preservationists” who wanted to stop all human intrusions and more moderate “conservationist.”…

    • 481 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Rhetorical Devices

    • 1472 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Perhaps the most important rhetorical aspect of each paper is the overall structure and order of the author’s ideas as they present their opinions and their purpose to the audience. Throughout Speciesism and Moral Status, Singer presents his information in a very specific way, beginning with the controversial statement that not all humans are above animals, and that there should be a…

    • 1472 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    abc at abc

    • 3544 Words
    • 10 Pages

    One day as I sat in the living room, watching the news on TV, there was a story about some demonstration by animal rights activists. I found myself agreeing with them to a greater extent than I normally do. While pondering why I found their position more appealing than usual that evening, I noted that I was also in a rather misanthropic mood that day. That suggested to me that there might be an association between misanthropy and support for animal rights. When evaluating the ethical status of an action that does some harm to a nonhuman animal, I generally do a cost/benefit analysis, weighing the benefit to humankind against the cost of harm done to the nonhuman. When doing such an analysis, if one does not think much of humankind (is misanthropic), e is unlikely to be able to justify harming nonhumans. To the extent that one does not like humans, one will not be likely to think that benefits to humans can justify doing harm to nonhumans. I decided to investigate the relationship between misanthropy and support of animal rights.…

    • 3544 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The author argues inherent value. Regan points out animals should be able to experience life with inherent value of their own. Addressing commercial animal agriculture, the author declares "The fundamental moral wrong here is not that animals are kept in stressful close confinement or in isolation, or that their pain and suffering, their needs and preferences are ignored or discounted." Regan continues the only way to right the wrong would be to stop…

    • 684 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In conclusion, although involvement to save endangered animals in sometimes necessary, its necessity is hinged on whether it affects the human species directly, and or will negatively affect the longevity of us as a species…

    • 342 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    The difference between “right” and “wrong” is rarely plainly clear. Dozens of wars have been fought over the centuries that have been driven by differing moral beliefs. These rights, and actions motivated by them, are justified by a society’s collective morals, which begs the question- who decides what the collective belief of an entire society is? Some seem relatively clear—the right to life, the right to work—while others are significantly cloudier— how does my right to own property and freely express myself affect my neighbor’s right to have a safe, peaceful place to live? As the layers of these moral problems are uncovered we delve deeper into what rights are, and just as importantly, who has them and why? Philosopher Immanuel Kant’s believes that all persons have inherent value and he bases his view of human rights off of whether or not the person is capable of making moral judgments and having free will and reason. Just as it has been argued over time what exactly a right is, not all have agreed on who has a right and why they deserve it. Though Tom Regan gives much credit to the Kantian argument of value, he believes the ownership of rights goes slightly further- that it is not rationality that defines the ownership of rights, but rather being the “subject of a life”. Regan uses egalitarianism to argue that in order to believe that people have more inherent rights than animals would contradict the argument altogether because it would favor humans or Homo sapiens over other animals simply because of our species. This “speciesist” belief cannot be justified, Regan says, because it ignores the worth and inherent value of millions of subjects of lives.…

    • 2005 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    When looking at things from an ethical perspective, one has to consider how to protect and preserve the basic needs of others as well as their own. There is no difference here when dealing with the well being of animals. Alice Walter and Ted Kerasote are two individuals who deal with ethical issues regarding the well being of animals, and while their stories are vastly different, their main points have overlapping similarities. In Anthony Weston’s A 21st Century Ethical Toolbox, both Walter and Kerasote’s experiences are explicitly detailed through Walter’s essay, “Am I Blue?,” and Kerasote’s excerpt from Bloodties: Nature, Culture, and the Hunt. Throughout both of their experiences, Weston’s three-part concept of ethics is put into full-effect.…

    • 1057 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Hursthouse has pointed out several issues related to the moral status arguments. It is hard to draw a fine line for determining what deem moral status. Things without moral status can become of our moral concern if they have sentient value and moral worth to those we concern thus they become valuable to us. If to expand “the circle of concern” to all sentient animals, it becomes over-simplified and problematic for our moral decision making as beings with moral status can make “competing claims” that may require us to further distinguish their features in order to justify our decision making (Hursthouse, 123). In addition, it is criticized as speciesim if to only keep human beings with moral status. Although Hurtshouse compares and contrasts the characteristics of speciesim and familysm, and concludes that giving moral preference for our species, namely human beings, is “sometimes wrong but sometimes right” (Hursthouse, 122), another issue is that we sometimes cannot avoid to evaluate the significance of moral worth among members of moral status. In short, the common consensus is that all humans are within “the circle of concern”. The moral status arguments not only give human being strong preference over nonhuman beings but also have instilled priority in decision making for moral agents. As Hursthouse argue, attaching the concept of moral status does not contribute to virtue ethics but only adds complications. If to apply the moral…

    • 765 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Speciesism and the Idea of Equality Author(s): Bonnie Steinbock Source: Philosophy, Vol. 53, No. 204 (Apr., 1978), pp. 247-256 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Institute of Philosophy Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3749431 Accessed: 05/08/2010 08:38…

    • 4954 Words
    • 20 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    4. I think we need to protect most, if not all, of the species, including some unattractive ones like snail darters. As mentioned in the book, we are now mostly focused on protecting “flagship” species, the species that look attractive to us as human beings. When we are amazed at the aesthetic value of those megafaunas like tigers and pandas, we are constantly forgetting the values of small animals like snail darters and many other pants. However, there are several reasons that we should protect those “unattractive species “too. The author of our book taught us that it is almost impossible to restore an extinct specie. When a specie of plants or animals actually disappear, with current technology, we have no way to bring them back. Also, those…

    • 259 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    Endangered Species Act

    • 1248 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The Endangered Species Act has been productive in extending the amount of species that are considered as being on the unsafe edge of end (Thames, 2005). In light of present circumstances, this is the greatest master of this law besides its key target. Everyone in the US has had some skin in the attempts of characteristic certification by virtue of this law. In every practical sense, this infers people can go to standard regions and see nearby untamed life in their living…

    • 1248 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    The first premise of his argument was that all human and non-human animals possess equal inherent value because they are all individuals experiencing life. His second premise is that possessing inherent value demands that these individuals have rights that should not be violated by others. The final premise of his argument is that any individual with rights must be treated equally and with respect. In this paper, I objected to his third premise by arguing that we humans should not interact with animals at all because we are not able to distinguish their perception of equality and…

    • 990 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays