PHL373H1 Lecture Notes - Lecture 5: Mark Rowlands, Harm Principle
Monday, September 26, 2016
1
Lecture 5 Notes
Mark Rowlands on Regan
- Regan essentially believes that:
- 1. All being with inherent value have the same rights as humans.
- 2. animals are the subjects of a life
- 3. if a being is the subject of a life, it has inherent value.
• Therefore: Premise B: Animals have the same rights as humans
- Rowlands criticism of Premise 3: Inherent value is mysterious
• He is recognizing that the subject of a life concept is supposed to explain
inherent value but it rests on mere correlation. He reasons that we find inherent
value wherever we see the subject of a life—this is inferring causation from
correlation. One of the reasons to be skeptical here is that there is no more
substance to the argument than that. How does subject-of-a-life explain
inherent value?
• Rowlands worry is meta-ethical/non-natural realism. Basically, the idea that
value is real and objective in the world but that it is a non-natural property—you
can’t reduce it or explain it in virtue of anything that is natural (atoms,etc.).
Inherent value is therefore going to be its own kind of non-natural property
which makes Rowland think that 1. subject of life is supposed to explain
inherent value but it doesn't seem like a non-natural characteristic, how do you
then get a non-natural property (inherent value) from the natural one? 2. If
subject of al life is a non-natural property, then it just seems mysterious.
- Principle of Equal Consideration:
• Regan believes that inherent value explains this principle through the use of rights.
- One aspect of the principle of equal consideration should be the harm principle.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
All being with inherent value have the same rights as humans. 2. animals are the subjects of a life. 3. if a being is the subject of a life, it has inherent value: therefore: premise b: animals have the same rights as humans. Rowlands criticism of premise 3: (cid:1688)inherent value is mysterious(cid:1689: he is recognizing that the subject of a life concept is supposed to explain inherent value but it rests on mere correlation. He reasons that we find inherent value wherever we see the subject of a life this is inferring causation from correlation. One of the reasons to be skeptical here is that there is no more substance to the argument than that. How does subject-of-a-life explain inherent value: rowlands worry is meta-ethical/non-natural realism. Basically, the idea that value is real and objective in the world but that it is a non-natural property you can"t reduce it or explain it in virtue of anything that is natural (atoms,etc.
