PHL373H1 Lecture Notes - Lecture 4: Christian Mortalism
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
1
PHL373 Lecture 4
Utilitarian Argument for Vegetarianism
Premise A: If eating meat doesn’t maximize happiness, it is not morally permissible
Premise B: eating meat does not maximize happiness
Conclusion: eating meat is not morally permissible.
Regan’s Argument
Conclusion: Eating meat is not morally impermissible
Theoretical Premise A: If animals have the same rights as humans, then its morally
impermissible to treat them as a resource.
Theoretical Premise B: Animals have the same rights as humans.
-Antecedent of the Conditional is satisfied, therefore the conclusion is valid.
Theoretical Premise C: Eating meat treats animals as a resource.
Is each theoretical premise true?
Regan is trying to defend the idea that animals have the same rights as humans.
- He says that morality is more than maximizing happiness but that we must extend the
same human rights to animals, this is why vegetarianism is required.
- Why do animals have the same rights as humans?
A. All beings with inherent value have the same rights as humans.**
B. Animals are subjects of a life.
C. If a being is a subject of a life then it has inherent value.
B. What is the subject of a life? A conscious creature that has an independent welfare
that is important to it regardless of its usefulness to others.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
