Question: Does
Miller believe that quasi-persons should be entitled to the same moral status
as human persons?
After our discussions in class, I have concluded that although Miller believes that human persons should treat quasi-persons with as much respect and justice as possible, he ultimately would argue that human persons are entitled to slightly more moral status than quasi-persons. Miller believes that moral status depends on the amount of certain characteristics an animal has. Humans are at the top of this scale, above quasi-persons, because they score slightly higher than quasi-persons on certain characteristics such as intelligence and the ability to know right from wrong. Therefore, Miller ultimately believes that human persons have a higher moral status than quasi-persons. For example, Miller believes that if faced with the decision to save either a human person or a quasi-person, we should choose to save the human person first. However, he acknowledges that being faced with such a decision is extremely unlikely. Therefore, he believes that unless we are faced with a decision such as the one stated above, we should treat quasi-persons such as apes and cetaceans with as much respect as we treat other humans with. He also believes that if our human interests were ever to collide with those of quasi-persons, we should be as impartial as possible when making a decision.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Response to "What Can Change the Culture?" by Siearra Papuga
In this post, I will be responding to Siearra Papuga's post, entitled "What Can Change the Culture?"
http://siearrasviewsnhn.blogspot.com/2013/03/what-can-change-culture.html?showComment=1364182020181#c2757188024418753316
I completely agree with your post. People can say that it is wrong to cause suffering to sentient nonhuman animals, but most of them will continue to eat meat if they already do. I agree with you that this is because meat-eating is a huge part of our culture. Before we had found other ways to get the protein that meat provides us with, like protein supplements, meat-eating was a lot more justifiable. People used to eat meat because it was necessary for their survival. Now, it is no longer necessary for survival. However, people are always resistant to change. People have come to love the taste of meat, and are reluctant to let that go. Many others just do not have the will power to stop now. I agree with you that eventually the culture would start to change if the inhumane treatment of nonhuman animals was broadcast to the public regularly. Personally, I think this is a good idea.
http://siearrasviewsnhn.blogspot.com/2013/03/what-can-change-culture.html?showComment=1364182020181#c2757188024418753316
I completely agree with your post. People can say that it is wrong to cause suffering to sentient nonhuman animals, but most of them will continue to eat meat if they already do. I agree with you that this is because meat-eating is a huge part of our culture. Before we had found other ways to get the protein that meat provides us with, like protein supplements, meat-eating was a lot more justifiable. People used to eat meat because it was necessary for their survival. Now, it is no longer necessary for survival. However, people are always resistant to change. People have come to love the taste of meat, and are reluctant to let that go. Many others just do not have the will power to stop now. I agree with you that eventually the culture would start to change if the inhumane treatment of nonhuman animals was broadcast to the public regularly. Personally, I think this is a good idea.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)