1. Every human being is different. No two
human beings are same. How can you
underline equality between them ?
It is the principle of “equal
consideration of interests of those
affected by a moral decision”
2. “The essence of the principle of equal
consideration of interests is that we give
equal weight in our moral deliberations to
the like interests of all those affected by our
actions. … What the principle really
amounts to is this: an interest is an
interest, whoever‟s interest it may be”
The implications of this principle are in the
context of genetic diversity and justification
of racism and sexism.
3. CASE#1: KNOWLEDGE
DIFFERENCE
IN SINGER‟S VIEW, “THE PRINCIPLE OF
EQUALITY IS NOT BASED ON ANY ACTUAL
EQUALITY THAT ALL PEOPLE SHARE. I HAVE
ARGUED THAT THE ONLY DEFENSIBLE BASIS
FOR THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY IS EQUAL
CONSIDERATION OF INTERESTS, AND I
HAVE ALSO SUGGESTED THAT THE MOST
IMPORTANT HUMAN INTERESTS … ARE
NOT AFFECTED BY DIFFERENCES IN
INTELLIGENCE”
4. CASE#2: EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
AND EQUAL PAY
“TO WORK FOR WIDER RECOGNITION OF
THE PRINCIPLE OF PAYMENT ACCORDING
TO NEEDS AND EFFORT RATHER THAN
INHERITED ABILITY IS BOTH REALISTIC AND, I
BELIEVE, RIGHT”
6. Racism, Sexism… and
Speciesism?
Just as racism is an irrational prejudice towards
someone because of their ethnicity, and sexism is
an irrational prejudice towards someone because
of their gender, speciesism is an irrational
prejudice towards someone because of their
species.
Human Infants can‟t speak but we take their
interest into account.
Animals can‟t speak and can‟t reason too then
why don‟t we take their interest into account.
7. Singer, as a utilitarian told that single
relevant factor in determining whether a
being has interests is whether or not they
can feel pleasure and pain.
Animals behave almost same way
humans do in pain and pleasure.
• Hence Anmials can feel pain
and pleasure so their interest
should also be taken into
account.
8. Most Human Beings are
Speciesists
In the 18th century most people were racists and
sexists: they placed the interests of their own
ethnic group/gender above the interests of
others.
Today, most people are speciesists: they place
the interests of their own species over the interests
of others.
• If racism and sexism are
morally wrong, then how can
we justify our speciesism?
9. Speciesism in Practice
For most people, their primary interaction with animals is
eating them.
This cannot be defended on nutritional grounds.
In any industrial society it is very easy to meet all
nutritional needs from a vegetarian diet.
In fact, eating meat is generally much more
harmful to human health than eating vegetarian
alternatives.
• Thus, we place our trivial interests
(desire for certain foods) over the
most profound interests of animals
like liberty, pain-free life, avoiding
premature death etc.
10. Modern Factory Farm
• If factory farms were made of
glass the whole world would
be vegetarians.
The practices of modern factory farms can only be
described as unspeakably cruel.
Each year in the U.S. alone between 8 and 10
BILLION animals are raised, kept in confinement, and
slaughtered.
No human activity, not war, crime, or even poverty
comes even close to causing the amount of
suffering that modern factory farms do.
11. Animal Experimentation
About 10 million animals are used in experiments
each year in the US.
I. The vast majority of this research is either
trivial, redundant or useless or pointless.
There are frequently alternative methods, such as
computer modeling, tissue sampling, or stem-cell
research that will do the job.
We do these experiments on animals but never on
brain-damaged orphans this is another example
of speciesism.
12. The Problem of „Marginal
Cases‟
Singer said whatever criteria we try to
use to distinguish human from non-
human animals we will run into trouble.
I. Pick a trait: language, intelligence, self-awareness.
II. There will be some humans that fail this criteria (brain-
damaged, infants etc.) and some non-humans (the
higher apes, dolphins) that meet it.
Consistency demands one of two
things:
I. Either we start treating such „marginal humans‟ the way
we treat animals or we start treating animals the way we
treat marginal humans.
II. Singer thinks we should do the later.
13. The „Ben Franklin‟
Objection
Franklin was a vegetarian, until one of his friend
caught a fish and found inside a smaller fish.
Franklin said if Animals can eat each other then
why can‟t we eat them !!
Reply : Not all animals eat each other.
Reply : Those who eat have not much choices but
humans have many alternatives and resources.
Reply : Humans eat each other too.
15. People often say that life is sacred.
But they do not mean, as their words seem to
imply, that all life is sacred.
If they did, killing a pig or pulling up a cabbage
would be as equal as the murder of a human
being.
When people say that life is sacred, it is human life
they have in mind.
But why should human life have special value?
The view that human life has unique value is deeply
rooted in our society.
To see how far it can be taken, consider the case
Peggy Stinson, a Pennsylvanian school teacher.
16. I want to note the striking contrast between such
efforts to preserve a human life and the casual way
in which we take the lives of stray dogs, monkeys
used in experiments, and the cattle, pigs and
chickens we eat.
What could justify the difference?
At this point, we should pause to ask what we mean
by terms „human life‟ and „human being‟.
We can say human being is a „member of the
species Homo sapiens‟.
In this sense there is no doubt that from the first
moments of its existence, an embryo is a human
being and the same is true of the most irreparably
intellectually disabled human being.
17. There is another use of the term „human‟, proposed
by Joseph Fletcher.
Fletcher compiled a list of what he called
„Indicators of Humanhood‟ that includes the
following:
self-awareness,
self-control,
a sense of the future,
a sense of the past,
the capacity to relate to others,
concern for others.
18. Killing a Person
A self-conscious being is aware of itself as a distinct
entity, with a past and a future.
A being aware of itself in this way will be capable of
having desires about its own future.
To take the lives of any of these people, without
their consent, is to thwart their desires for the future.
Killing a snail does not thwart any desires of this
kind, because snails are incapable of having such
desires.
In this respect, human foetuses and even newborn
infants are in the same situation as snails.
19. Respect for Autonomy
„Autonomy‟ refers to the capacity to choose and
to act on one‟s own decisions.
Rational and self-aware beings presumably have
this capacity.
In particular, only a being who can grasp the
difference between dying and continuing to live
can autonomously choose to live.
As the choice of living or dying is about the most
fundamental choice anyone can make, the choice
on which all other choices depend, killing a person
who does not choose to die is the gravest possible
violation of that person‟s autonomy.
20. The hedonistic utilitarian and preference utilitarian
do not consider autonomy as basic moral principle.
The hedonistic utilitarian would consider it right to kill
a person who does not choose to die on the
grounds that the person will otherwise lead a
miserable life.
The preference utilitarian also reach a similar
conclusion if a person‟s desire to go on living is
outweighed by the equally strong desires of others.
21. Killing a Merely Conscious Being
Many beings are capable of experiencing pleasure
and pain, but they are not rational and self-
conscious.
These are called „merely conscious‟ beings.
The reason that it is wrong to kill a being capable of
experiencing pleasure or pain is the one that a
hedonistic utilitarian would give: because of the
pleasure it can experience.
A similar argument about pain points in the
opposite direction, and this argument counts
against killing only when we believe that the
pleasure that beings are likely to experience
outweighs the pain they are likely to suffer.
22. Comparing the Value of Different
Lives
The most fundamental issue is whether we can
accept the idea of ordering the value of different
lives at all.
If we do so, we shall inevitably put ourselves at the
top and other beings closer to us in proportion to
the resemblance between them and ourselves.
To compare different lives we have to find some
neutral ground, some impartial standpoint from
which we can make the comparison.
Then only we can make sense of the idea that the
life of one kind of animal possesses greater value
than the life of another.
In general, more the highly developed mental life of
the being, the greater the degree of self-awareness
23. Taking life : Animals
Throughout Western civilization, nonhuman
animals have been seen as beings of no ethical
significance
Aristotle thought that animals exist for the sake of
more rational humans, to provide them with food
and clothing.
KANT thought only rational beings can be ends in
themselves, and animals are mere means.
Hume thought we owed “gentle
usage”, although not justice, to animals.
24. Peter singer urged that despite obvious differences
between humans and nonhuman animals, we share
with them a capacity to suffer, and this means that
they, like us, have interests.
If we ignore or discount their interests, bcoz they are
not members of our species, the logic of our position
is similar to that of the most blatant racists or sexists
who thinks that those who belong to their race or sex
have superior moral status, simply in virtue of their
race or sex, and irrespective of other characteristics
or qualities.
Although most humans may be superior in reasoning
or other intellectual capacities to non-human
animals, that is not enough to justify the line we draw
between humans and animals.
25. Replaceability and
Utilitarianism
Replaceaility argument for meat eating:
Meat eaters are responsible for death of an
animal and loss of its experienced pleasure
Also responsible for creation of more animals
and the pleasure they experience
“If we kill one animal we can replace it with
another as long as the other will lead a life as
pleasant as the one killed would have led if it had
been allowed to go on living”.
26. Hedonistic utilitarianism
(right acts maximize utility=pleasure)
May or may not accept replaceability
argument, depend on whose
good/pleasure counts.
Two version of (hedonistic?) utilitarianism
a.) Total view: should maximize utility even if
best way is to bring into existence sentient
beings who otherwise would not have
existed.
b.) Prior existence view: Should maximize
utility of just those beings whose existence is
already a given (prior to the decision under
consideration).
27. Conclusion
His central message in the book on animal
liberation is an expansion of the utilitarian idea
that action is right if it promotes happiness of
everyone affected by it.
He does not believe it is wrong in principle to kill
animals for food. Since most animals likely have
no concept of death, they cannot have a desire
to go on living.
He opposes meat-eating, since although the
animals have no preference to not die, they do
have a preference to not feel pain - and the
processes of farming and slaughtering will
inevitably cause them pain, thus violating their
preferences.
29. Active Euthanasia
Something is done to the
patient to hasten Death.
Not legal in the India.
Legal in Netherlands and
Australia.
Examples: drugs are
administered at lethal
levels.
30. Passive Euthanasia
Patient is allowed to die. Only
medication help ease patient‟s
pain is administered.
Passive euthanasia is legal in
India.
Examples:
Turning off respirator, refusing
chemotherapy.
32. Non- Voluntary
Patient cannot
decide from
themselves.
Someone
makes the
decision for
them.
•Examples: children, comatose
patients, or individuals not mentally
competent
33. Involuntary
Patient is refused a
life sustaining
treatment.
Examples: Drugs are
too costly, limited
supply of organs.
About 13,000
patients are on
waiting list in the US.
34. Life and Death Decisions
for Disabled Infants
Parents love their child irrespective of their physical or mental
disabilities.
Killing an infant might be justified in cases of acute diseases
which lead to severe pain, e.g. spina bifida.
Killing a disabled newborn is not equal to killing a person.
35. JUSTIFYING VOLUNTARY
EUTHANASIA
It is carried out by a physician.
The patient has explicitly requested euthanasia.
The patient's decision is well-informed, free, and durable.
The patient has an irreversible condition.
36. Conclusion
We can simply say that euthanasia is only justifiable if those
killed either
I. lack the ability to consent to death, or
II. have the capacity to choose between their own continued
life or death and to make an informed, voluntary, and
settled decision to die.
38. Relative and Absolute Poverty
•Relative Poverty: In industrialized countries, people
are poor by comparison to others in their society.
Their poverty is relative – they have enough to meet
their basic needs and usually access to free health
care as well.
•Absolute Poverty: People living in extreme poverty
in developing countries are poor by an absolute
standard: they have difficulty in meeting their basic
needs, i.e, food, shelter, clothing, sanitation, health
services and education. Absolute poverty kills.
39. Moral Equivalent of Murder
•Is extreme poverty is a moral equivalent of murder?
•Difference between Killing and allowing to die.
1. Different Motivation
2. Difference in Duty to avoid killing to duty to save.
3. Difference in outcomes.
4. Who are these identifiable individual?
5. Not responsible of plight of the poor.
40. Singer’s Obligation to Assist
On his way to give a lecture, he passed a shallow ornamental pond and notice
that a small child has fallen in and is in danger of drowning. He looked around
to see where the parents, or babysitter, are, but to his surprise, he saw that
there was no one else around. It seems that it is up to him to make sure
that the child doesn’t drown. Would anyone deny that he ought to wade in
and pull the child out? This will mean getting his clothes muddy, ruining
his shoes and either cancelling his lecture or delaying it until he can find
something dry to change into; but compared with the avoidable death of
a child none of these things were significant.
41. Argument for the Obligation to Assist
First Premise: If we can prevent something bad
without sacrificing anything of
comparable significance, we ought to do
it.
Second Premise: Absolute poverty is bad.
Third Premise: There is some absolute poverty
we can prevent without sacrificing
anything of comparable moral
significance.
Conclusion: We ought to prevent some absolute
poverty.
42. Objections to the Arguments
• Singer has come up with three main objections of his own:
1. Taking care of Our Own.
2. Property Rights.
3. Population and the Ethics of Triage.
4. Leaving it to the Government.
5. Too High Standard.
43. Conclusion
•Impossible to decide what is morally comparable.
•Many people have different opinions.
•Third Premise must be specific to those who are
sacrificing.
