Bonnie steinbock speciesism and the

Bonnie steinbock speciesism and the idea of equality outline

It leads to a perfectly acceptable consequence. If two living creatures that are equal in moral terms are treated unequally, this is discriminatory against the one that is disadvantaged. It is very complex. What is a compelling reason? I do so on Steinbock's principle of "take care of one's own" only I don't use species as the defining characteristic of "one's own" but "circle of closeness. Clearly not ALL humans have all these capabilities tiny children, some mentally deficient or mentally ill people are examples. Baranzke, Heike : "Alle Tiere sind gleich". In this essay she says: "much of our present treatment of animals [that] involves the infliction of suffering for no good reason, is not very interesting philosophically. If humans constitute a special and morally privileged species, then it will be on the basis of these traits: They are beings who are responsible for their acts and can do other than they have done.

The answer to this question depends, in turn, on which qualities of the living creature are recognised as morally relevant. Not a fair move. Rather, the racist, sexist or heterosexist commits the error of making the "value" of a person dependent in any way on his or her qualities.

She defines cruel as: "Cruelty is the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering.

bonnie steinbock euthanasia

She's assumed what she was trying to prove. When I hear of harming for the pure sake of inflicting pain, then, like Steinbock, I guess questions seems at an end for me and I just have to say: YES.

Thus we can let the dogs starve if there isn't enough food.

speciesism and the idea of equality bonnie steinbock quizlet

Such an argument would be impossible were there not a special status species for humans that made them the preferred species. Tierversuche und moralischer Individualismus.

As a matter of principle all humans are distinguished by their capacity for moral action - that is, action that takes account of the interests of other living creatures - as well as by their desire for autonomy, dignity and respect.

Lastly, she counts neglect as cruelty. But must all other people? When would I get to the point of having developed a moral obligation to the stray such that to stop feeding it would be neglect? In this sense I can understand Steinbock's claim. Bob Corbett. Furthermore, Steinbock affirms speciesism. Whites often make that argument for excluding blacks. Ach, Johann S. How does one then criticize it? For example I can see a very different situation between MY cat and feeding a stray. ONE manner not the only, but nonetheless one is to show that this moral claim leads to some result in the world which we can see is just a silly or clearly undesirable state of affairs again, that prima facie business. Yet all they are doing is "taking care of one's own. One that she deals with is that it would follow we couldn't BE SURE that we should feed a hungry and starving child before feeding a hungry and starving cat.
Rated 8/10 based on 32 review
Bonnie Steinbock