To get updates on new site content, like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter.

Difference between revisions of "Sandbox:Greg.Fuller"

From JFA Wiki
Line 27: Line 27:
 
<li>one</li>
 
<li>one</li>
 
<li>two</li>
 
<li>two</li>
 +
</ul>
 +
 +
<ul>
 +
<li>one</li>
 +
<li>two</li>
 +
</ul>
 +
 +
<ul>
 +
    <li>EDU
 +
        <ul>
 +
            <li>My take
 +
                <ul>
 +
                    <li>All philosophical frameworks lead to veganism</li>
 +
                    <li>No philosophical framework is required for the argument for veganism</li>
 +
                </ul>
 +
            </li>
 +
            <li>Philosophers
 +
                <ul>
 +
                    <li>Jeremy Bentham
 +
                        <ul>
 +
                            <li>Biographical
 +
                                <ul>
 +
                                    <li>English philosopher 1748 - 1832</li>
 +
                                </ul>
 +
                            </li>
 +
                            <li>Philosophy
 +
                                <ul>
 +
                                    <li>Hedonistic utilitarian.</li>
 +
                                    <li>He argued that it was the ability to suffer rather than the ability to reason
 +
                                        that should provide the benchmark, or what he called the "insuperable line", of
 +
                                        how we treat other animals. He pointed out that if rationality was the main
 +
                                        criterion of who ought to have rights and how we treated other animals than many
 +
                                        humans would for similar reasons be treated as objects in much the same way as
 +
                                        animals, for example babies and the mentally disabled."<br>http://think-differently-about-sheep.com/Animal_rights_a_History_Jeremy_Bentham.htm
 +
                                    </li>
 +
                                </ul>
 +
                            </li>
 +
                            <li>Quotes
 +
                                <ul>
 +
                                    <li>"The time will come when humanity will extend its mantle over everything which
 +
                                        breathes..."
 +
                                    </li>
 +
                                    <li>"The question is not can they reason? Nor, can they talk? But can they suffer?"
 +
                                        <br>In a footnote in Bentham, J. 1789. An Introduction to the Principles of
 +
                                        Morals and Legislation. Chapter xvii.)
 +
                                        <ul>
 +
                                            <li>Full quote in context
 +
                                                <ul>
 +
                                                    <li>referring to the limited degree of legal protection given to
 +
                                                        slaves in the French West Indies by the Code Noir, in 1789 he
 +
                                                        wrote:
 +
                                                    </li>
 +
                                                    <li>"The day has been, I am sad to say in many places it is not yet
 +
                                                        past, in which the greater part of the species, under the
 +
                                                        denomination of slaves, have been treated by the law exactly
 +
                                                        upon the same footing, as, in England for example, the inferior
 +
                                                        races of animals are still. The day may come when the rest of
 +
                                                        the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could
 +
                                                        have been witholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The
 +
                                                        French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is
 +
                                                        no reason a human being should be abandoned without redress to
 +
                                                        the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognised
 +
                                                        that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the
 +
                                                        termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient
 +
                                                        for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is
 +
                                                        it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of
 +
                                                        reason or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown
 +
                                                        horse or dog, is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a
 +
                                                        more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or
 +
                                                        even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what
 +
                                                        would it avail? the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can
 +
                                                        they talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its
 +
                                                        protection to any sensitive being? The time will come when
 +
                                                        humanity will extend its mantle over everything which
 +
                                                        breathes..."
 +
                                                    </li>
 +
                                                </ul>
 +
                                            </li>
 +
                                            <li>The capacity to suffer entitles one to an equal consideration of
 +
                                                interests.
 +
                                            </li>
 +
                                        </ul>
 +
                                    </li>
 +
                                    <li>“Each to count for one and none for more than one."
 +
                                        <ul>
 +
                                            <li>Equality: the interests of every being affected by an action are to be
 +
                                                taken into account and given the same weight as the like interests of
 +
                                                any other being.
 +
                                            </li>
 +
                                        </ul>
 +
                                    </li>
 +
                                    <li>"The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights
 +
                                        which never could have been witholden from them but by the hand of tyranny."
 +
                                    </li>
 +
                                </ul>
 +
                            </li>
 +
                            <li>Impact
 +
                                <ul>
 +
                                    <li>"It was during the 1800s that an increase in consideration and respect for the
 +
                                        rights of animals grew, along with the idea that animals should be treated
 +
                                        differently. Much of this change in attitude was due to the influence of Jeremy
 +
                                        Bentham who changed the philosophies of many people by changing the way they
 +
                                        looked at animals. Rather than regarding them as inferior to human beings
 +
                                        because of their inability to reason, Bentham applied ethical utilitarianism to
 +
                                        animals. He said that because animals suffer, their happiness and wellbeing is
 +
                                        relevant and that it is the capacity for suffering that gives all sentient
 +
                                        beings the right to equal consideration."<br>http://think-differently-about-sheep.com/Animal_rights_a_History_Jeremy_Bentham.htm
 +
                                    </li>
 +
                                </ul>
 +
                            </li>
 +
                        </ul>
 +
                    </li>
 +
                    <li>Peter Singer
 +
                        <ul>
 +
                            <li>Philosophy
 +
                                <ul>
 +
                                    <li>Has described himself as a hedonistic utilatarian.</li>
 +
                                    <li>"Equal consideration of interests"
 +
                                        <ul>
 +
                                            <li>The term "equal consideration of interests" first appeared in Peter
 +
                                                Singer's Practical Ethics.
 +
                                            </li>
 +
                                            <li>A moral principle that states that one should both include all affected
 +
                                                interests when calculating the rightness of an action and weigh those
 +
                                                interests equally.<br>Marco E.L. Guidi, <a
 +
                                                        href="http://etudes-benthamiennes.revues.org/182), Revue d’études benthamiennes, vol. 4 (2008">“Everybody
 +
                                                    to count for one, nobody for more than one”: The Principle of Equal
 +
                                                    Consideration of Interests from Bentham to Pigou</a></li>
 +
                                            <li>If all beings, not just human, are included as having interests that
 +
                                                must be considered, then the principle of equal consideration of
 +
                                                interests opposes not only racism and sexism, but also speciesism.
 +
                                            </li>
 +
                                        </ul>
 +
                                    </li>
 +
                                    <li>Equal consideration is not equal treatment:
 +
                                        <ul>
 +
                                            <li>"The extension of the basic principle of equality from one group to
 +
                                                another does not imply that we must treat both groups in exactly the
 +
                                                same way, or grant exactly the same rights to both groups. Whether we
 +
                                                should do so will depend on the nature of the members of the two groups.
 +
                                                The basic principle of equality does not require equal or identical
 +
                                                treatment; it requires equal consideration. Equal consideration for
 +
                                                different beings may lead to different treatment."<br>Animal Liberation
 +
                                            </li>
 +
                                        </ul>
 +
                                    </li>
 +
                                    <li>Rejected rights as a necessary component of a moral philosophy.
 +
                                        <ul>
 +
                                            <li>"These claims [about rights] are irrelevant to the case for Animal
 +
                                                Liberation. The language of rights is a convenient political shorthand."
 +
                                            </li>
 +
                                            <li>Although Bentham speaks of “rights” in the passage I have quoted, the
 +
                                                argument is really about equality rather than about rights. Indeed, in a
 +
                                                different passage, Bentham famously described “natural rights” as
 +
                                                “nonsense” and “natural and imprescriptable rights” as “nonsense upon
 +
                                                stilts.” He talked of <b>moral rights as a shorthand way of referring to
 +
                                                    protections that people and animals morally ought to have;</b> but
 +
                                                the real weight of the moral argument does not rest on the assertion of
 +
                                                the existence of the right, for this in turn has to be justified on the
 +
                                                basis of the possibilities for suffering and happiness. In this way <b>we
 +
                                                    can argue for equality for animals without getting embroiled in
 +
                                                    philosophical controversies about the ultimate nature of rights.</b><br>Animal
 +
                                                Liberation
 +
                                            </li>
 +
                                        </ul>
 +
                                    </li>
 +
                                    <li>"What we must do is bring nonhuman animals within our sphere of moral concern
 +
                                        and cease to treat their lives as expendable for whatever trivial purposes we
 +
                                        may have."<br>AL
 +
                                    </li>
 +
                                    <li>Did not believe that all lives are of equal worth
 +
                                        <ul>
 +
                                            <li>"I conclude, then, that a rejection of speciesism does not imply that
 +
                                                all lives are of equal worth. While self-awareness, the capacity to
 +
                                                think ahead and have hopes and aspirations for the future, the capacity
 +
                                                for meaningful relations with others and so on are not relevant to the
 +
                                                question of inflicting pain— since pain is pain, whatever other
 +
                                                capacities, beyond the capacity to feel pain, the being may have— these
 +
                                                capacities are relevant to the question of taking life.
 +
                                            </li>
 +
                                            <li>It is not arbitrary to hold that the life of a self-aware being, capable
 +
                                                of abstract thought, of planning for the future, of complex acts of
 +
                                                communication, and so on, is more valuable than the life of a being
 +
                                                without these capacities.
 +
                                            </li>
 +
                                            <li>To see the difference between the issues of inflicting pain and taking
 +
                                                life, consider how we would choose within our own species. If we had to
 +
                                                choose to save the life of a normal human being or an intellectually
 +
                                                disabled human being, we would probably choose to save the life of a
 +
                                                normal human being; but if we had to choose between preventing pain in
 +
                                                the normal human being or the intellectually disabled one— imagine that
 +
                                                both have received painful but superficial injuries, and we only have
 +
                                                enough painkiller for one of them— it is not nearly so clear how we
 +
                                                ought to choose.
 +
                                            </li>
 +
                                            <li></li>
 +
                                            <li>Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal
 +
                                                Movement (Kindle Locations 652-657). Open Road Media. Kindle Edition.
 +
                                            </li>
 +
                                        </ul>
 +
                                    </li>
 +
                                    <li></li>
 +
                                    <li>Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement
 +
                                        (Kindle Locations 649-652). Open Road Media. Kindle Edition.
 +
                                    </li>
 +
                                    <li>Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement
 +
                                        (Kindle Locations 645-646). Open Road Media. Kindle Edition.
 +
                                    </li>
 +
                                    <li></li>
 +
                                    <li>Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement
 +
                                        (Kindle Location 645). Open Road Media. Kindle Edition.
 +
                                    </li>
 +
                                    <li>Animal Liberation (1975)</li>
 +
                                </ul>
 +
                            </li>
 +
                            <li>Veganism
 +
                                <ul>
 +
                                    <li></li>
 +
                                </ul>
 +
                            </li>
 +
                        </ul>
 +
                    </li>
 +
                </ul>
 +
            </li>
 +
            <li>Definitions
 +
                <ul>
 +
                    <li>Utilitarian.
 +
                        <ul>
 +
                            <li>A consequentialist moral philosophy which considers the morality of an action is
 +
                                determined solely by its utility in providing happiness or pleasure as summed among all
 +
                                sentient beings."
 +
                            </li>
 +
                        </ul>
 +
                    </li>
 +
                    <li>Hedonistic Utilitarian.
 +
                        <ul>
 +
                            <li>A moral philosophy which asserts that the rightness of an action depends entirely on the
 +
                                amount of pleasure it tends to produce and the amount of pain it tends to prevent.
 +
                            </li>
 +
                        </ul>
 +
                    </li>
 +
                </ul>
 +
            </li>
 +
        </ul>
 +
    </li>
 
</ul>
 
</ul>

Revision as of 01:02, 19 February 2019

Two:

Three

Extension:DynamicPageList (DPL), version 3.3.2: Warning: 'headingmode=definition' has no effect with 'ordermethod' on a single component. Using: 'none'. Help: you can use not-none 'headingmode' values with 'ordermethod' on multiple components. The first component is used for headings. E.g. 'ordermethod=category,comp' (comp is another component) for category headings.

Extension:DynamicPageList (DPL), version 3.3.2: Warning: No parameter option supplied for 'Animals'. (Missing '=')

Animals
  1. Draft:Infectious diseases
  2. Honey, Bees, and Pollination
Earth
  1. Draft:Environmental Impacts of Animal Agriculture
  2. Grazing
  3. Oxford Study 2018: Reducing foods environmental impacts through producers and consumers
  4. Sandbox:Test Share, TOC, and Plain Text
Fact Sheet
  1. Choline
  2. Draft:Calcium
  3. Draft:Environmental Impacts of Animal Agriculture
  4. Draft:Infectious diseases
  5. Draft:Iron
  6. Grazing
  7. Honey, Bees, and Pollination
  8. Oxford Study 2018: Reducing foods environmental impacts through producers and consumers
  9. Sandbox:Test Share, TOC, and Plain Text
  10. Sandbox:Testing; (semicolons); in titles
  11. Starvation, Hunger, and Impoverishment
Health
  1. Choline
  2. Draft:Calcium
  3. Draft:Infectious diseases
  4. Draft:Iron
Humanity
  1. Sandbox:Testing; (semicolons); in titles
  2. Starvation, Hunger, and Impoverishment
Study
  1. Oxford Study 2018: Reducing foods environmental impacts through producers and consumers
Summary
  1. Draft:Infectious diseases
  2. Honey, Bees, and Pollination
  • one
  • two
  • one
  • two
  • EDU
    • My take
      • All philosophical frameworks lead to veganism
      • No philosophical framework is required for the argument for veganism
    • Philosophers
      • Jeremy Bentham
        • Biographical
          • English philosopher 1748 - 1832
        • Philosophy
          • Hedonistic utilitarian.
          • He argued that it was the ability to suffer rather than the ability to reason that should provide the benchmark, or what he called the "insuperable line", of how we treat other animals. He pointed out that if rationality was the main criterion of who ought to have rights and how we treated other animals than many humans would for similar reasons be treated as objects in much the same way as animals, for example babies and the mentally disabled."
            http://think-differently-about-sheep.com/Animal_rights_a_History_Jeremy_Bentham.htm
        • Quotes
          • "The time will come when humanity will extend its mantle over everything which breathes..."
          • "The question is not can they reason? Nor, can they talk? But can they suffer?"
            In a footnote in Bentham, J. 1789. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Chapter xvii.)
            • Full quote in context
              • referring to the limited degree of legal protection given to slaves in the French West Indies by the Code Noir, in 1789 he wrote:
              • "The day has been, I am sad to say in many places it is not yet past, in which the greater part of the species, under the denomination of slaves, have been treated by the law exactly upon the same footing, as, in England for example, the inferior races of animals are still. The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been witholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognised that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog, is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being? The time will come when humanity will extend its mantle over everything which breathes..."
            • The capacity to suffer entitles one to an equal consideration of interests.
          • “Each to count for one and none for more than one."
            • Equality: the interests of every being affected by an action are to be taken into account and given the same weight as the like interests of any other being.
          • "The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been witholden from them but by the hand of tyranny."
        • Impact
          • "It was during the 1800s that an increase in consideration and respect for the rights of animals grew, along with the idea that animals should be treated differently. Much of this change in attitude was due to the influence of Jeremy Bentham who changed the philosophies of many people by changing the way they looked at animals. Rather than regarding them as inferior to human beings because of their inability to reason, Bentham applied ethical utilitarianism to animals. He said that because animals suffer, their happiness and wellbeing is relevant and that it is the capacity for suffering that gives all sentient beings the right to equal consideration."
            http://think-differently-about-sheep.com/Animal_rights_a_History_Jeremy_Bentham.htm
      • Peter Singer
        • Philosophy
          • Has described himself as a hedonistic utilatarian.
          • "Equal consideration of interests"
            • The term "equal consideration of interests" first appeared in Peter Singer's Practical Ethics.
            • A moral principle that states that one should both include all affected interests when calculating the rightness of an action and weigh those interests equally.
              Marco E.L. Guidi, <a href="http://etudes-benthamiennes.revues.org/182), Revue d’études benthamiennes, vol. 4 (2008">“Everybody to count for one, nobody for more than one”: The Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests from Bentham to Pigou</a>
            • If all beings, not just human, are included as having interests that must be considered, then the principle of equal consideration of interests opposes not only racism and sexism, but also speciesism.
          • Equal consideration is not equal treatment:
            • "The extension of the basic principle of equality from one group to another does not imply that we must treat both groups in exactly the same way, or grant exactly the same rights to both groups. Whether we should do so will depend on the nature of the members of the two groups. The basic principle of equality does not require equal or identical treatment; it requires equal consideration. Equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment."
              Animal Liberation
          • Rejected rights as a necessary component of a moral philosophy.
            • "These claims [about rights] are irrelevant to the case for Animal Liberation. The language of rights is a convenient political shorthand."
            • Although Bentham speaks of “rights” in the passage I have quoted, the argument is really about equality rather than about rights. Indeed, in a different passage, Bentham famously described “natural rights” as “nonsense” and “natural and imprescriptable rights” as “nonsense upon stilts.” He talked of moral rights as a shorthand way of referring to protections that people and animals morally ought to have; but the real weight of the moral argument does not rest on the assertion of the existence of the right, for this in turn has to be justified on the basis of the possibilities for suffering and happiness. In this way we can argue for equality for animals without getting embroiled in philosophical controversies about the ultimate nature of rights.
              Animal Liberation
          • "What we must do is bring nonhuman animals within our sphere of moral concern and cease to treat their lives as expendable for whatever trivial purposes we may have."
            AL
          • Did not believe that all lives are of equal worth
            • "I conclude, then, that a rejection of speciesism does not imply that all lives are of equal worth. While self-awareness, the capacity to think ahead and have hopes and aspirations for the future, the capacity for meaningful relations with others and so on are not relevant to the question of inflicting pain— since pain is pain, whatever other capacities, beyond the capacity to feel pain, the being may have— these capacities are relevant to the question of taking life.
            • It is not arbitrary to hold that the life of a self-aware being, capable of abstract thought, of planning for the future, of complex acts of communication, and so on, is more valuable than the life of a being without these capacities.
            • To see the difference between the issues of inflicting pain and taking life, consider how we would choose within our own species. If we had to choose to save the life of a normal human being or an intellectually disabled human being, we would probably choose to save the life of a normal human being; but if we had to choose between preventing pain in the normal human being or the intellectually disabled one— imagine that both have received painful but superficial injuries, and we only have enough painkiller for one of them— it is not nearly so clear how we ought to choose.
            • Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement (Kindle Locations 652-657). Open Road Media. Kindle Edition.
          • Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement (Kindle Locations 649-652). Open Road Media. Kindle Edition.
          • Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement (Kindle Locations 645-646). Open Road Media. Kindle Edition.
          • Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement (Kindle Location 645). Open Road Media. Kindle Edition.
          • Animal Liberation (1975)
        • Veganism
    • Definitions
      • Utilitarian.
        • A consequentialist moral philosophy which considers the morality of an action is determined solely by its utility in providing happiness or pleasure as summed among all sentient beings."
      • Hedonistic Utilitarian.
        • A moral philosophy which asserts that the rightness of an action depends entirely on the amount of pleasure it tends to produce and the amount of pain it tends to prevent.
Retrieved from "https://justiceforanimals.org/index.php?title=Sandbox:Greg.Fuller&oldid=1931"