PHIL 237 Study Guide - Final Guide: Amboseli National Park, Speciesism, Handjob
Question 1: Mill claims that “[i]t is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.”
(Mill, p. 34) Explain how Mill reaches that conclusion. Do you think that Mill is a speciesist (in
the sense in which Singer understands the notion)? In your answer, make sure to explain what
speciesism is.
John Stewart mill lays out and follows a principle of utilitarianism. In this principle he
outlines the idea of pleasure as the “highest good” and that pleasure and freedom from pain are
the only things desirable as ends and that all desirable things are desirable either for the pleasure
inherent in themselves, or as means to the promotion of pleasure and prevention of pain. He
furthermore provides a dichotomy of pleasure between mental pleasures (higher values to
pleasures of the intellect, feelings, imagination and moral) and bodily pleasures (pleasures of
mere sensation). And if a competent judge (a being that has experienced both kinds of pleasures),
had the choice between the two, he would prefer mental pleasures because mental pleasures are
more intrinsically valuable. And therefore he goes on to say that “It is better to be a human being
dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.”. Mill believes humans have more advanced faculties than those
of animals and a being of higher capacities requires more to be happy and thus would not ever
resign to be a ‘lower’ animal except if to escape a deep state of unhappiness.
But in analysis of these principles there is a level of specieism present within mill’s
theories. Speciesm according to Singer is an attitude of bias against a being because of the
species to which it belongs. Singer notes that typically humans show speciesism when they give
less weight to the interests of nonhuman animals than they give to the similar interests of human
beings. By Singer’s definition, speciesism is allowing the interests of one’s own species to
override the greater interests of members of other species. Singer believes that it is the capacity
for suffering and/or enjoyment and happiness that entitles a being to equal consideration — not
higher degrees of intelligence. By this definition, I would propose that Mill would in fact be
considered a speciesist because he believes that humans’ ability to enjoy mental pleasure shows
that they are more intelligent and thus superior to other animals. Because of this superiority, he
believes that humans’ needs and interests are more important because they have the capacity for
higher pleasures.
Question 2: Explain Kant’s view on the moral status of animals. Do you find this view
convincing? Provide one reason to either endorse or reject Kant’s view.
Kant’s moral theory is one that formulates the premise that only rational beings have a
moral status. He believes that only humans have the capacity for reason and therefore only
humans are rational beings. From that he goes on further to say that animals are BEINGs without
reason and therefore have only a relative worth, as means, and are referred to as things, whereas
rational beings are called persons because their nature marks them out as an end in itself. We
have a direct moral obligation to treat humans as ends in themselves because of their status as a
rational being and therefore their own reasoned motives must be equally respected to our own
But, it is important to note that Kant does believe that we do have an indirect moral duty
to animals even though they have no moral status because we have an obligation to cultivate
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
feelings that are conductive to morality and to torture animals or otherwise treat them without
love goes against this duty and is therefore demeaning to our own character.
However, I reject this view on the grounds that there are some animals like elephants,
wolves, pigs, who are known as rational animals. For example Matriarchal elephants in Kenya's
Amboseli National Park were able to determine the threat level of human intruders by
differentiating ethnicity, gender and age, suggesting an understanding that adult Maasai
tribesmen sometimes kill elephants in competition for grazing or in retaliation for attacks against
humans, while Kamba tribesmen and women and children from both tribes don't pose a threat.
This is a clear example of the higher cognitive processes that go on within some animals.
Furthermore, if rationality is a factor in moral status, then humans that are not rational like
infants, handicapped persons, someone in a coma would not have a moral status because they
lack the ability to rationalize. His very principles propose a level of speciesm and therefore is
counter intuitive to one’s moral obligation to cultivate feelings of love for nature when you
weigh the life of your species as of greater weight than of another species. By Kant claiming that
humans are the only species who has quality to be treated as ends in themselves, Kant is playing
on an unequal and speciest view upon human life. The very idea of speciesm is a violation to
humans and other animal’s rights and therefore any form of speciesm immediately diminishes
the validity of one’s argument as morally sound.
Question 3: Rachels has argued that it is wrong to kill some animals, even if these animals did
not suffer, because they have a right to life. Explain Rachels’ argument. Do you find his
argument convincing? Why or why not?
Rachels argues against killing animals by firstly stating that killing animals is unjust as it often
times causes suffering. He says that it is undeniable that nowadays the way meat is produced
requires a lot of suffering for animals and to cause this suffering is morally incorrect. However
the idea that even if we could produce meat without causing suffering for the animal, the
production of meat would still be immoral. He claims this because he believes that animals have
a right to life
a person having the right to life is often times described as one who has a life and
therefore has a right to that life. yet, it is important for rachels to distinguish what qualities
deduce having a life and why animals have the right to one. Rachels believes that having a life is
not the same thing as being alive. being alive is a biological notion. having a life, on the other
hand, is a biographical notion. a being who has a life has an history that he or she can describe in
terms of actions, beliefs, relationships, etc. And therefore a death is evil when it puts and end to a
life not to a biological process. For example killing bacteria is not morally wrong because they
lack the mental capacities necessary for a life. However rachels does note that there are some
animals like monkeys or elephants who do have a life. For example, elephants are shown to have
hierarchical relationships within their herds and also perform mourning ceremonies for the death
of a family member. Therefore animals like such do show to have a life and therefore rachels
believes they have a right to it. To violate any living being with a life’s right to that life is
characterized by rachels as deeply morally incorrect and that is in itself why we cannot kill
animals even if it it is done with no suffering.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
However, I do not find Rachels argument the most convincing because I do not think it
has a strong consistency. He lays out the argument as 1. When I have something I have a right to
it. 2. I have a life and 3. I have a right to life. But does this argument work in other similar cases.
For example, if says when I have something I have a right to it, and I have a car, and therefore I
have the right to a car. And at face value it seems to work but there is the question that arises: is
having a life just like having a car? is it a question of owning something? I would say not.
Having a life is more like having certain capacities as outlined when Rachels’ says that the
shrimp does not have the capacities for a life. And therefore Rachels’ argument should in fact be
p1: when I have the capacities for something, then I have a right to it. p2: I have the capacities
for a life: I have a right to life. But then from that if one applies killing to this argument? Does it
work in the case of our capacities to eat meat, our capacities to kill? Because therefore it would
lay out as p1: when I have the capacities for something, then I have a right to itp2: I have the
capacities for killing C: I have a right to kill. This conclusion is unacceptable and thus Rachel’s
reasoning seems to be flawed
Question 4: Kass has argued that legalizing voluntary active euthanasia will have bad
consequences. Pick two of them, and explain why they will follow according to Kass. Do you
think that these two consequences are convincing arguments against the legalization of voluntary
active euthanasia? Why or why not?
Kass argues that we should not legalize voluntary active euthanasia because of the bad
consequences that could follow it. One of these consequences presented is that if we legalize
voluntary euthanasia the doctor profession would become a killing profession which would have
Damaging consequences on the doctor-patient relationship. It would impact the level of trust
between patient and doctor. And there would be a psychological difference with how will
doctors wholeheartedly care when it is always possible to think of killing as a therapeutic option,
an easy fix to a case that may at first seem hopeless. It creates a fear that the doctor is attempting
to kill you instead of cure you and can create distrust, anxiety, and paranoia within the patient.
The second consequence he discusses is that if voluntary euthanasia is in fact legalized, it will
lead us to using non-voluntary euthanasia as well. He claims that we want euthanasia in the first
place for mercy killings. But usually those who need mercy killings are not in the state to fully
consent to this. Because of our desire to implement euthanasia as a mercy killing measure, we
are likely to fall down the slippery slope to then include non voluntary mercy killings If we
believe it still aligns with out principle of saving a person from pain and suffering. And example
of this was evident in Hitler’s Germany in which Leo Alexander (1949) has argued that the
holocaust started from small beginnings. the starting point was to claim that some lives are not
worth living (the lives of the terminally ills). then, gradually, the category got more
encompassing and included: the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially
unwanted, and finally all non-Germans.
However the consequences are not convincing for this argument. Consequence 1which
says that we will distrust doctors because they will be able to kill us and it will harm the doctor-
patient relationship is not a good argument for not legalizing euthanasia . Just because doctors
have the capacity to perform voluntary active euthanasia doesn’t mean they will just use it as
they please because therefore it would not be voluntary. You would need a patients consent and
therefore the patient will have ultimately trusted the doctor to preform such an act if the approval
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Question 1: mill claims that [i]t is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. (mill, p. 34) explain how mill reaches that conclusion. In your answer, make sure to explain what speciesism is. John stewart mill lays out and follows a principle of utilitarianism. He furthermore provides a dichotomy of pleasure between mental pleasures (higher values to pleasures of the intellect, feelings, imagination and moral) and bodily pleasures (pleasures of mere sensation). And if a competent judge (a being that has experienced both kinds of pleasures), had the choice between the two, he would prefer mental pleasures because mental pleasures are more intrinsically valuable. And therefore he goes on to say that it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. But in analysis of these principles there is a level of specieism present within mill"s theories.
