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.

Some people say that an 8-month-old fetus has survived from the mother, so he or she is already an individual human being.
In such cases, should he or she is considered a threat to him or her if his or her mother does not want him or her to induce themselves? For my own belief, I think no one can enter my house without my permission.
The uterus, can also be regarded as the property of the mother, she owns this "palace", not because the fetus grew in this "palace", the fetus is the "house owner", the fetus is in fact only a tenant. According to this logic, I have always believed that the tenant (the fetus) did not enter into a valid contract with the "house owner" to pay any pound of gold, in which he or she reside, but with the mother's acquiescence, and when the mother no longer acquiesced, he or she has no right to stay.
I've always believed that abortion is not what I believe in. And now I'm in a dilemma that will be illustrated by a simulated situation: a stranger, he's in my house, I can make sure that he would not harm me, but he eat my food and keep staying in the house - and that's not my will, and my will is to get him out of my property as soon as possible. At this time, there is no doubt that, as a self-possessor, I have reason to say that he has violated my private property and that I have the right to let him stop the abuse against me immediately. However, there was one way to get him to stop the abuse and only to kill him. It just like the situation of abortion.

Siyi Qiu

Page 169-189, this is a short science-fiction story. There’s couple questions I want to discuss. I know in those kind story we are forced into doing some moral choice like this, so I have get rid of any other possible solution, like the situation in the “train” story.
As in utilitarianism approach, in order to maximizing the benefit, the best choice for them is to throw the little girl out the window,  which would save other five’s life. And they did, also they are following the conventionalism approach, they are on a mission and no matter what it takes, they should follow the command. Here is my question, what if that was not a little girl, instead, it was an animal(dog/cat/bear), and captain has huge connection to it. Does he still choose to throw it out the window. I guess he could not make choices in that circumstance. So the point is, anything , a living creature or a object, once there’s relation or emotion associated with it, people tend to hesitate, that is the virtue doing the work. In the end, they throw the girl out the window, she does not have a connection to the captain. That is why she got throw out in my opinion.


Libo cheng

I agree with lido's idea. in that situation,by utilitarianism ethics, it is right to abandon that girl, because we needs to get the most benefit in lowest cost. So there is no doubt that he abandon the girl to save other people's life. However by Kant's idea, it is wrong, we can not kill one's life to save others, because it is immoral. Everyone is equal, it is unfair that we did that. There is also another question that how we measure the utility, we think that the girl's utility is smaller, because there is only one person, and she is young. what about there is another special situation that she can get high achievement in the future, that it is higher even plus other's achievement, then did we do wrong. it is hard because we do not know the future. so is there a way to consider all situation or did author consider this situation in this question? Also, by other's idea, it is right because there can be exception, and I think this is the special situation, and by convention, we may be not do that, because we may not let a girl died, we will let a not elder male die instead.
 

-   Does animal have rights?
In my own point of view, I think animals have rights and should be treated equally as human. In the textbook, the author argues that animals should have equal rights as human and being vegetarian is not supererogatory, but obligatory (Raziel,452). I personally think it is necessary for human to have this idea in their minds since humans are animals too. Moreover, in the textbook, the author stated that farm animals are not treated with respects and farmers and consumers only view them as the money source and food. The main point is to deliver this idea to the society and let people be aware of this issue, although it is impossible to wake up next morning and every meat industry gets shut down and everyone becomes an vegetarian, the relationship between humans and animals should be re-examined. Furthermore, animal-testing is always a controversial topic in today’s society, though scientist have sufficient evidences to support their action, I think it is immoral to test anything on animals. Transpositional consideration should be mentioned during any testing, if fails, then it disobeys the morality of nature. In addition, a lot of people may claim that it is the natural law for animals to obey and follow the instructions of human, but what if the farm animals are the ruler of the Earth? What will us, the human, feel if they treat us the same way we treat them? It is important for us to recognize this issue and make changes.
 shuran lin

“In order to state the argument of the opponent of assisted suicide and euthanasia in its strongest form and to avoid unnecessary complexity in exposition, I shall focus in this section on euthanasia. The claim that any individual instance of euthanasia is a case of deliberate killing of an innocent person is, with only minor qualifications, correct. Unlike forgoing life-sustaining treatment, commonly understood as allowing to die, euthanasia is clearly killing,understood as depriving of life or causing the death of a living being. While providing morphine for pain relief at doses where the risk of respiratory depression and an earlier death may be a foreseen but unintended side effect of treating the patient's pain, in a case of euthanasia the patient's death is deliberate or intended even if in both the physician's ultimate end may be respecting the patient's wishes If the deliberate killing of an innocent person is wrong,euthanasia would be nearly always impermissible.
In the context of medicine, the ethical prohibition against deliberately killing the innocent derives some of its plausibility from the belief that nothing in the currently accepted practice of medicine is deliberate killing. thus, in commenting on the It's Over Debbie"case in which a resident deliberately gave a patient a lethal dose of morphine, four prominent physicians and bioethicists, led by Willard Gaylin, could entitle their paper "Doctors Must No Kill. The belief that doctors do not kill requires the corollary belief that forgoing life-sustaining treatment, whether by not starting or by stopping treatment, is allowing to die, not killing. Common though this view is, I shall argue that it is confused and mistaken. Typical cases of stopping life-sustaining treatment are killing, not allowing to die, although they are cases of ethically justified killing. But if so, that shows that an unqualified ethical prohibition of the deliberate killing of innocent persons is indefensible and must be revised.” Page 194, “assisted suicide and euthanasia are deliberate killing of an innocent person.”


Comment:
The writer claims “euthanasia is clearly killing, understood as depriving of life or causing the death of a living being”. He stands for the argument that euthanasia is deliberate killing of an innocent person. Life is not so sacred that it must never be taken. It depends on different situation. If a patient get a unbearable suffering from a terminally ill, and he can't live for a long time because it is incurable. He would like to choose euthanasia, then euthanasia is not killing but an act or method to end suffering painlessly. This is the patient’s own will. If euthanasia is not permitted by the patient, then it is not right. It also allows the patient to retain their dignity. It gives greater weight to respecting the patient’s right of control or self-determination regarding his or her own life. Last year, a famous host in Tai Wan choose to end his life by euthanasia. He asked both his families and doctors’ permission. Then he drink the medicine with his families company and died in peace. This news triggers a lot of attention in Tai Wan’s society, got supporting from many people. It shows that people have a great understanding on euthanasia. The host can't afford the suffering and the huge money of medical care, and his ill is incurable, so his family respected his decision to end his pain by his own willing.
The writer also mentioned the case of “It’s over Debbie”. A resident deliberately gave a patient a lethal dose of morphine which caused death of Debbie. Using morphine is moral if the aim of this resident is reliving the girl’s pain. But he knew that over dose of morphine will cause death, it is killing on purpose and against the girl’s will. Also her ill is curable. It’s murder, not euthanasia.
In the case of euthanasia, the choice rests fully with the patients and it will not take place without patients desire. But in the case of Debbie, she didn't choose euthanasia and she wasn’t told the truth.