PHL373H1 Lecture 6: PHL373 Lecture 6 Carruthers
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
1
PHL373 Lecture 6: Carruthers
Reconstruction of Carruthers Argument
- Eating meat is morally permissible (in relevant cases).
• (A) If an action is morally impermissible, then either the patient has rights or is
covered by someone else’s rights.
• (B) Animals do not have rights.
• (C) In the relevant cases, animals are not covered.
(B) Animals do not have rights
- 1. A being has rights only if it can contract. (contractarianism)
• Distinct moral agents trying to come up with a cohesive course of action that
applies to all of us. This is Rawls’ strength—he uses the powerful components of
utilitarianism but distorts this and turns it into his Social Contract Theory wherein
morality is a collective decision.
• Question becomes what is the procedure by which we make this decision? It is at
this point that you get distinct views on contractarianism.
• Carruthers is using Rawls’ version and Scanlon’s version.
• EVERYTHING depends on the procedure that brings about the Social Contract.
- This procedure must be an explanation of morality. (i.e. the procedure cannot be
to get a room full of racists and call majority rules)
- Rawls’ procedure is the veil of ignorance.
• Carruthers does a two step arguments:
- He imagines the rules and THEN imagines what the rules will look like when
being practiced in the real world
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
A being has rights only if it can contract. (contractarianism: distinct moral agents trying to come up with a cohesive course of action that applies to all of us. It is at this point that you get distinct views on contractarianism: carruthers is using rawls" version and scanlon"s version, everything depends on the procedure that brings about the social contract. This procedure must be an explanation of morality. (i. e. the procedure cannot be to get a room full of racists and call majority rules) Rawls" procedure is the veil of ignorance: carruthers does a two step arguments: He imagines the rules and then imagines what the rules will look like when being practiced in the (cid:1688)real world(cid:1689) We have a rule that said only rational beings are given rights. In the real world, people are going to be able to claim that certain human beings who are rational beings are in fact not.
