Recently, we’ve been introduced to Jason Kawall’s argument for the theory of Biocentric Individualism (BI). In this paper, I intend to state Kawall’s argument for the theory, explain the premises and conclusions of the argument, and evaluate the argument using an objection raised and responded to by Kawall himself. My thesis in this paper is that Kawall presents a strong cogent argument for biocentric individualism.
The argument begins by asserting (in premise one) that it is morally preferable to avoid stepping on a worm, at no cost or benefit to oneself or others, than to step on it. The second states that if it is morally preferable to avoid stepping on the worm, then the worm possesses direct moral standing (DMS). The third premise/first
…show more content…
To clarify, there is a distinction between moral standing and direct moral standing. The worm can be said to have moral standing because it is considered when people choose to step around it, but in making an effort not to harm the worm we consider it for its own sake – in other words, we attribute DMS to the worm. This serves to form premise two: “if it’s morally preferable to avoid stepping on a worm, at no cost or benefit to oneself or others, then a worm has direct moral standing.” If we are to assume that premises one, that it’s morally preferable to avoid stepping on a worm, and two, that because it’s morally preferable to avoid stepping on worms it means that worms have DMS, are true, then it would appear that the argument concluded by premise three/conclusion one,“ so a worm has direct moral standing”, is valid. That is, it’s impossible for these premises to be true and the conclusion false (D2L definitions). Were the argument invalid, it would be possible that the premises be true and the conclusion false (D2L …show more content…
If we accept that a worm has DMS and that the worm has DMS because it’s alive, then it appears that conclusion three, that all living things have DMS because they’re alive, is guaranteed. If a worm’s DMS is based on the simple fact that it is alive, then anything else that’s alive should also have DMS for this reason. The argument is valid because it is impossible for the premises/previous conclusions to be true, and the final conclusion false. Were the final conclusion not guaranteed by the preceding premises/conclusions, the argument would be invalid. This theory, which states that all living things have direct moral standing, is known as biocentric individualism
In which he describes the encounter between a man and a mouse, consequently, the writer determinates that there is certain connection between them, and that the mouse has also capacity to have thoughts, feel love and compassion. The connection between them is compared “a child of God” and the “holy creature” (Steiner 846). The writer concludes that as conscious beings, both individuals have the same level of dignity, therefore, the use of animals as food is considered an “unforgiveable”
Morality is not something that should be easy to comprehend, and philosophers such as Mackie and McDowell are taking the wrong approach when trying to describe morality in natural terms. People need to understand that morality is something supernatural that we don’t have the capacity to comprehend. However, this does not mean that all moral judgments are false. There is a right choice in every scenario, however the variety of scenarios in this world is so grand that one cannot judge it by one code of
Before analyzing her argument, it is necessary to look into the term "owe." There are two types of "owe"; one is backed by the legal system. For example, if a person borrows money from someone, it is required by law to pay that money back. Another "owe" is responsibility that is backed by morality. For example, if a person sees that someone had an accident; it is a moral responsibility to call an ambulance.
Philosopher, Christine Korsgaard, assesses her idea of the capacity for normative self government, in her her short writing, Morality and the Distinctiveness of Human Action. In her writing she argues that a form of life, whether human or animal/insect, it is not one controlled by guidelines and principles but is one governed by instinct desire and emotion. Korsgaard makes her claim with examples and premises on intentions. Korsgaard claims that the essence of morality relies on the normative self government and believes that laws in society do not protect those who are citizens but those who share the interest that the laws were made to protect.
To ascribe an entity with moral status ― whether an adult human, infant, foetus, or non-human animal ― is to declare that its treatment by other moral agents is mo...
3. Universal consent proves nothing innate. This argument, drawn from universal consent, has this misfortune in it,
There are many arguments for moral realism, one of which is presented by David Enoch, who posits a unique explanation of how normative truths can exist. He argues for moral realism by using his Indispensability Argument, which explains the necessity of normative facts in deliberation. I will argue that Enoch’s claim is valid in that it fairs well against opposition, however it shows weakness by not addressing moral subjectivity.
Speciesists claim that this enables them to think and act morally, and so entitles them to a higher moral status. This argument, like many other speciesist arguments, fails when “the argument from marginal cases” is applied. The argument from marginal cases argues that if we treat beings based on traits, such as rationality, we must then treat all beings of equal rationality the same.... ... middle of paper ... ...
The purpose of this paper is to argue for the idea that even without a God, there can be a basis for morality. The structure of my argument will proceed as follows. I will begin my paper with the background information of the idea that without a God, specifically the Christian God, there is no moral basis. After detailing this false belief, I will go on to explain why it is indeed untrue due to various reasons. I will bring forth the conflicting views of St. Thomas Aquinas and the natural law theory before countering the arguments brought up by them.
Premise 2 states that since there are different beliefs from one culture to the next, there cannot be one or more belief(s) that apply to everyone. There are countless different moral beliefs from culture to culture whether it be dining etiquette, or what side of the road one drives on, or how one should dress. As a result, the conclusion, from premises 1 and 2, that there are no objective moral truths is viewed as sound and valid. However, if viewed from a closer perspective, it can be seen that there is an inference with premise
A deontologist believes that irrespective of consequences some acts are deemed intrinsically wrong (Flanagan, 2016b). Kant (Flanagan, 2016b) offers the following “act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”. Therefore, morality is determined by the principle of the action, rather than the action itself. From a deontological stance to cause “unnecessary suffering” is intrinsically wrong, thus animals as morally innocent, vulnerable and being able to feel pain (Linzey, 2013; Rollin, 2011) are owed moral obligations. Furthermore, “ a morally considerable being is a being who can be wronged in a morally relevant sense” (Gruen, 2014). Therefore, discussion of animal vivisection in
Chapter five: Am Expansive Conception of Persons, focus around constructing and defining the definition of personhood. Within this chapter Thomas M. Norton-Smith uses several different philosophers, both with adjacent and opposing views to construct his argument of personhood. Thomas N. Norton-Smith begins by first defining the parameters of human in terms of the Native American perspective. He looks into the perspective of human and other than humans beings which both can be recognized as categories of persons. The term persons is expansive, meaning that is can be applied to many different agencies. AN example of this would be animals, the Sun, rain, the ocean, mountains, and so forth.
Singer’s argument is constructed around the principle of equal consideration of interests. According to Singer the principle demands moral equality for non-human animals; though it is said that equal consideration of like relevant interests does not entail equal treatment. His argument is based on the fact that as long as the being is capable of suffering we are deemed to consider his/her interests and how they are affected by our actions. Hence, for Singer moral status is achieved through interests. Conversely for Singer, if the interests are not alike then we need not to treat humans and animals the same way. So how possibly can we say that we have achieved the demanded moral equality if there is not equal treatment....
Truth of oneself makes it visible when faced with absurd events in life where all ethical issues fade away. One cannot always pinpoint to a specific trait or what the core essence they discover, but it is often described as “finding one’s self”. In religious context, the essential self would be regarded as soul. Whereas, for some there is no such concept as self that exists since they believe that humans are just animals caught in the mechanistic world. However, modern philosophy sheds a positive light and tries to prove the existence of a self. Modern philosophers, Descartes and Hume in particular, draw upon the notion of the transcendental self, thinking self, and the empirical self, self of public life. Hume’s bundle theory serves as a distinction between these two notions here and even when both of these conception in their distinction make valid points, neither of them is more accurate.
Lewis says some folks object to the fact that there is a moral law. Some believe that this is no more than our herd instinct that has been developed. Other say what we call moral law is just a social convention, something that is put into us by education. The author points out that the way each opponent defends his side really shows that there is a right and wrong independent of what people think. Even though the idea of decent behavior makes us suspect whether there is a real natural law of behavior at all, the author concludes that the things we are bound to think about when we explain the differences, really prove just the