Study Guides (248,276)
Canada (121,454)
Philosophy (546)
PHI2396 (100)
All (28)

Bioethics Midterm 2 Review- part 2.docx

14 Pages
Unlock Document

All Professors

Bioethics Midterm 2 Review Part TwoJohn Feinberg Research on NonHuman SubjectsJohn Feinberg discuses TWO basic ethical concepts rights and interestsMain argument to have a right is to have a claim to something and against someone the recognition of which could be used to protect ones legal rights or ones moral rightsIn either case we appeal to the enlightened conscienceoEnlightened conscience in the sense that you have awareness and selfawareness you are aware you are making a claimoTo have a right in the full moral sense of the world them is to have enlightened conscienceBut there is another conceptual way of thinking ex we can argue that an ape has rights because they feel pain and can understand some of what is going on around themThere are certain kinds of beings that can have rights because we can meaningfully predicate rights to them following a certain logic of reasoningSuch beings have only contingent rights which are always in some way combined with the rights of the enlightened conscienceThe rights of seven main groups individual animals vegetables whole species dead persons human vegetables fetuses and future generations1 Individual AnimalsWhen he looks at it he sees they do not have rightsThe law reflects that we have duties regarding animals but not necessarily to animals Whats the differenceAnimals are not genuine moral agents therefore they do not have rights and duties in the same way humans do Why is thatCommon reasons to deny animal rightsoAnimals are intellectually incompetent we cannot reason with them so in other words you cannot reason with a pig ex they cannot claim their own rights by making a motion or appearing in court on their own so if you tie a right to a claim of some sort then it becomes clear that they cannot claim anything they cannot articulate thy cannot organize themselvesoAnimals done even understand whether any of their rights have been violated and they cannot respond adequately to thatThere are legal rules against cruelty and meaningless killing of animals but this does not solve the problem whether individual animals have rights or notFeinberg the ability to understand your own rights and set the legal machinery towards protecting them are NOT necessary for the possession of rightsIf that were the case incompetent human beings human vegetables and babies would be deprived of rightsA more sound argument a being that has rights is one that has interests and could be represented one that is capable of being a beneficiary in his own personHis verdict animals are incapable of interestsoAnimals are like mere things In order to have interests one has to have conative life conscious wishes desires and hopes urges and impulses aims and goals direction of growth and natural fulfillmentoAnimals lack conation so the laws against cruelty against animals are laws for us human not for the animals We dont want to encourage cruel behavior in humans or appear to be cruelAnimals do have some interests in an important sense
More Less

Related notes for PHI2396

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.