PHI1630 Contemporary Ethical Problems - Shanghai Summer 2019

I'm replying on Unmuseder's comment #28 on animal having rights. First, she suggested that animal should have equal rights as human since both are animals, and being vegetarian is obligatory. However, while the human is biologically considered as animals, they surpassed other animals on aspects like the sense of reason and justice. Such superior abilities make the human “born out of" the animal and become something else, say, some species who can debate in this forum about whether animals should have rights. Her second point states that rather than an immediate and acute change, we should bring the idea out and planted it into society. I agree with this approach while respectfully disagree with the idea. We shouldn't expect any rapid changes in the higher end of the industry chain since it will make a huge impact on the economy and rather than making animals having rights, it will make many humans suffer. But, even if this idea got out and many people converted to this idea. Meat-eating will never stop. Without enough supply of meat, blakc market will emerge from the need of people who want to eat meet. While the society lose the industry of living stalk, it encourage illegal production and we need to spend resources to stop it. The best way is to maintain the current scale of the live stalking industry. Furthermore, she pointed out that animal testing is immoral. However, according to utilitarianism and Kant's duty theory, animal testing is actually moral. While an animal can cost very little, the huge benefits of testing new technology on animals out weight any cost of animals. So many human lives is saved from drugs approved useful on animal tests. Without such experiments, scientists will only perform an experiment on a real human. Now, that's real immorality. According to Kant, we reach a similar result. If every scientist perform animal testing right now and nothing changes, there is no break-down of reasons what so ever. Also, animals cannot be considered as rational agent since they don't have the abilities to reason and justice. So we, the human, don't have to treat them as human, thus performing tests on human is immoral, but on animals is moral. While she argues that if animals are the ruler of the earth, we are not going to be happy. But happiness can only be experienced by a rational being. I'm sure if other animals is the ruler of the earth, we, human will not feel a thing because they are intelligent and we are not rational. I would like to add a point in the end. If animals have rights, does laws apply to them? If they have rights, can they "murder" each other for food? Should human prevent them from killing each other in the wild and provide them food to keep them alive? I'm sure that Unmusedst disagree with such ideas.

“A U.S. tourist, driving through a central American country ruled by a cruel dictator, stops in a village where twenty rebellious peasants are lined up against a wall, facing a firing squad.  The commanding officer approached the tourist and offers to spare nineteen of the rebels if the tourist takes the officer’s revolver and shoots one of the rebels. Compared to the dilemma facing the pilot of the spaceship in “The Cold Equations,” is the tourist’s moral dilemma more, less or equally difficult to resolve morally? Defend your position as you compare the two situations.”

------ p.188 Ethics for Modern Life, Raziel Friquegnon



The question is whether a U.S. tourist will go and execute one of the rebels in a nation of the dictator in Central America in order to save the other nineteen. First, if the tourist is following Divine command. Majority of the Americans are Christians. The Christian religion teaches people that they should not kill people. So if the tourist is strictly following the Divine command, he will not kill the man and save the other 19. However, a single U.S. tourist going to central American, according to my stereotype, is more likely to come from a rather liberal state, and holds liberal, non-religious view when making their act.

If the tourist is a government official or a businessman, he or she might follow the Utilitarianism, believing that he or she should do the best for the greatest number. If he wants to the best for the greatest number of Americans, he will shoot one and save the others. American’s traditional value is liberal and democratic, thus opposing any authoritarian states (with exceptions of the cases that there are great benefits to be gained). A state that is led by a dictator is by nature U.S.’s enemy and assuming the enemy of an enemy is a friend because the tourist doesn’t have enough time to investigate the reason those 20 people are rebelling for, the people rebelling is American’s friends. And if the tourist shoots one of the rebels and saves the other, that means saving 19 allies of America, who might fight for freedom around the world and for American’s interests. However, the tourist needs to take the credibility of the commanding officer in an authoritarian nation. If he shoots the man and the commanding officer ordered his firing squad to keep shooting. That means that he didn’t save anyone, plus that he’s now killed one himself. In this case, the cost outweighs the benefits. He also needs to consider the identity of those twenty rebels. If one of them is the head of the rebel, he should, when following utilitarianism, shoot one of the other to save him.

If the tourist is following Kant’s duty theory. He should not shoot the man and save the others. The act of killing something is not going to pass CI. If killing something is normalized and universalized, then the world will be in a state of suffering, and chaos. So even though the consequence of him or her killing one is good, he can not do that based on his goodwill, under Kant’s duty theory.