Ethics Notes PDF

THE SPECIFICS OF THE DISCIPLINE Ethics – gr. Ethos, character, habit Other labels – moral philosophy, axiology Invented by Socrates, but moral ideas were present elsewhere, e.g. Bible, Mythologies, etc. Preliminary definition: Rational reflection on morality and values Valu...

THE SPECIFICS OF THE DISCIPLINE Ethics – gr. Ethos, character, habit Other labels – moral philosophy, axiology Invented by Socrates, but moral ideas were present elsewhere, e.g. Bible, Mythologies, etc. Preliminary definition: Rational reflection on morality and values Values and needs A) Human beings have needs B) assuming that value = abstract of a set of goods that satisfy a certain need C) values conflict D) it is not clear how to solve such conflicts e.g. national security / transparency or truth / care or loyalty / justice Tools are needed to understand, analyze and resolve such conflicts Intuitive solutions are insufficient = in sum we don't know "how one should live" Methodological remarks Ethics =/= Law Law – normative order, created by political authority, uses sanctions and punishment => moral, immoral or morally neutral Ethics - normative order, grasped/created by our cognitive powers, only internal sanctions => independent from the law, sometimes its source Ethics =/= Theology Theology – religion proposes moral norms and values => but justifies them by supernatural factors, not rational Ethics – can propose exactly the same norms and values => but justifies them by our natural cognitive powers, experience and reason Ethics is a normative discipline: Descriptive Ethics – searches for facts about moral life, uses empirical tools (moral psychology, moral sociology, anthropology, biology, neurosciences)  How people really think and act in moral systems? What explains morality? Normative Ethics – searches for norm and values, uses philosophical tools How should we think about moral matters? What norms are justified? How should one live? Not about facts, but about norms we should follow! Problems: is/ought, naturalistic fallacy (pleasure = good) Rationality Theses and Arguments in ethics are based on natural cognitive powers: => there are better and worse moral beliefs => ….and better and worse ways of resolving ethical conflicts Freedom (free will) Moral assessments make sense only if: We can control our actions We can be held accountable for our actions => we have to assume this, even if those claims are false Moral Skepticism Skepticism in ethics is somehow a popular almost default position: Justified by (1) argument from moral disagreement and (2) argument from historical relativity => both skepticism and its arguments have/leads to difficult problems The puzzling nature of moral beliefs/judgments The idea of Moral Judgement/Assessment Our actions are subject to moral assessment, if:  They are non-neutral in terms of their impact on (understood this or that way) moral good; Of human being or other (morally significant) entities. We can assess: Consequences of actions (state of affairs); Intentions (decisions) - can be assessed even without potential consequences; Author of the action (his or her character). Layers of "ethical reflection": 1. Metaethics – meta-level analysis of moral practice, language and reflection in three aspects: Moral semantics – what linguistic functions do moral utterances fulfill? Do they express judgements/beliefs or rather feelings/attitude? Moral epistemology – does moral beliefs aim at truth? Is there such a thing as moral knowledge? The problem of moral skepticism Moral ontology – do "moral facts" exist? 2. General ethics/ethics per se – systematic, rational, normative reflection on moral assessment of human action, which seeks justified (objective) standards of such assessment. Typical questions: How should one live? What is a good life? What type of character we should develop and what kind deserves approval? What moral standards apply to us? 3. Practical/applied ethics – ethics concerned with particular field of human activity that would use things that we manage to establish during general reflection, but in a context of empirical data. Bioethics – our activity impacts live beings; Environmental ethics; Professional ethics; Ethics of science; Computer ethics; Ethics of AI. Main ethical theories and their tools Introductory remarks on Ethical Theory 1. (Bernard Williams) Ethical Theory is a theoretical structure that: Describes and explains the nature of moral beliefs and practices; Implies a test of the correctness of moral beliefs and practices.  2. ET consists of: Anthropological and metaphysical assumptions; Standards of morality – principles; Method – a tool for generating moral judgements and rules (moral norms) Consequentialism – this type of theory evaluates actions in terms of their consequences => utilitarianism, a classical form of C: Theory developed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill (18th/19th century): So called material premise – social utility is the norm of morality – moral goods is that what brings pleasure or satisfies preferences, moral evil is that what brings pain or frustrate preferences, each person's states counts the same. So-called formal premise – The Method - the consequences of actions are assessed according to the Principle of Maximization => we should choose actions that have the most favorable outcome. Additional features: According to utilitarianism, there are no absolute (permanent, irrefutable) moral rules. => breaking a rule may always happen to be of more utility Utilitarianism comes in many forms, it is worth distinguishing: o Direct utilitarianism – each action is subject to calculation; o Indirect utilitarianism – general norms are subject to calculation Advantages of utilitarianism: Empirical grounding Secular nature – zero connenction to idealistic point of view like religion, metaphysics etc. Advantages of utilitarianism: Empirical grounding Secular nature – zero connenction to idealistic point of view like religion, metaphysics etc.  Advantages of utilitarianism: Empirical grounding Secular nature – zero connenction to idealistic point of view like religion, metaphysics etc. Deontology - this type of theory evaluates actions in terms of intentions behind them - whether it expresses the will to respect on=bligations and rights => Kantian Ethics, a classical form of D: Theory developed by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) during Enlightment era; In ethics, Kant was inspired by the modern understanding of science => he was looking for universal and nessecary moral rules Kant's reasoining - abbreviation: o Moral rules (maxims) cannot be justified by the consequences of action, happiness or pleasure => all rules such justified are only hypothetical (hypothetical imperative), relative; Universal morality must therefore be derived from reason and evaluate actions in terms of their intention (good will); At the same time, moral rules cannot be imposed on anyone (anti-paternalism) in other words - people shouldn't be forced to accept moral rules; We need to find rules that every rational being will agree to without coercion => compare: the idea of social contract (e.g. democracy); If some rules meet these conditions, they will become moral law, which is a system of universally binding obligations and rights; According to Kant, the method of testing if a given rule can enter the system of moral law is the so-called Categorical Imperative: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. (1st formulation) Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end. (2nd formulation) Act according to maxims of a universally legislating member of a merely possible kingdom of ends. (3rd formulation)  Each formula of the categorical imperative expresses prior conditions. => we ask whether every rational subject will agree to a given rule within the framework of his or her own autonomy (freedom); e.g. Lying, stealing - rules allowing such actions do not pass the categorical imperative test, because no rational entity should allow a situation in which he may become their victim. Maxims that pass the test of the categorical imperative become necessary and we are obligated to respect them. => they become the basis for obligations, rights, prohibitions and orders (moral law) Advantages of Kantian ethics: It justifies moral norms by refering to our common features (rationality, desire for freedom); It nicely expresses the unconditional nature of (some) moral laws; Disadvantages: Extremely immoral maxims can pass the imperative test; It seems that most moral norms are not unconditional. Virtue ethics - this type of theory evaluates actions in terms of the character of the action's author - => (neo)aristotelianism, modernized, classical form of VE. Theory developed by Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), who was following the intuitions of Socrates and Plato; today, virtue ethics is flourishing Virtue (skill of high level) ethics focuses on the virtues and vices of human character (general moral profile of particular person that him/her have certain control over) Main elements of theory: Moral rules themselves do not lead to good unless they are interpreted by morally mature people; Morally mature people are people who: o Have developed their potential and live in the state of eudaimonia (well-being, flourishing), people who inspire us, who have a good impact on other people; o Have moral experience and o stable, strong character (circumstances don’t overcome their will to behave in a good way)  o and (1-3) guarantee their accurate judgement and morally good actions. There is a non-accidental, intrinsic, strong relationship between 1, 2, 3 and 4. This relationship is expressed in terms of virtues, understood as: o relatively stable o both cognitive and emotional dispositions o resulting from habituation (doing something over and over), o which are excellences o In achieving good essential for well-being, flourishing Virtues are moderate form (golden means) between the lack or excess of a certain trait There are four virtues fundamental to the moral life, which are traditionally called cardinal: o Prudence o Justice o Temperance (moderation) o Courage => moderation (avoiding extremes) is the ability to take care of one's body and mind, a moderate form between asceticism (ban all possible pleasures, not to be addicted) leading to bitterness and promiscuity (lack of ability to withstand pleasure) leading to destruction => courage is the ability to defend important goods, an intermediate form between cowardice (fear is ruling, controlling a person) and bravado (strong control of fear, that person can actually ignore it) Without cardinal virtues, it is impossible to achieve moral maturity and a state of well- being, flourishing. Advantages of virtue ethics: strongly rooted in empirical data on human behaviour; Accurate intuitions about practical reality Disadvantages: No codification possible – no strong rules, big problem, because rules are needed in some areas like medicine; It does not say what you should do rather what kind of person to become; Eudaimonism; paints a certain ideal, egocentric perspective, less altruistic, as not as concerned about treatment of others, but gives advices of what kind of person I should become.  Christian personalism => a mixture of deontology and virtue ethics, with an emphasis on special value of human person, "dignity" (JPII) Contractualism => deontology understood in terms of contract (John Rawls) Material ethics of value => objective world of values as base of ethics (Max Scheler) The Concept of Person, the Concept of Animal Anthropology - the study of the origin and development of human societies and cultures. The concept of Animal: The idea of "Animal" has been interpreted differently => depending on the historical epoch, culure, religion We will concider philosophical and ethical inerpretations => rational understandings In phylosophical reflection (and therefore independently of religion), there are essentially two types of views on the nature of animals: 1) The traditional view: Plato, Aristotle, St. Thomas, Descartes, Kant 2) The modern view: e.g. Peter Singer, Tom Regan Traditional view: There is a clear, qualitative (methapysical, antic) difference between humans and animals; Humans are a different, more perfect kind of being; Components: rationality, free will, self-consciosness, language, morality, law, religion, etc. => human beings have certain powers that animals lack and use them to achieve a higher way of life in comparison to animals. !This unique status is reffered to as => personhood! Moral implications of traditional view: The moral satus of animals is lower than that of humans; Animals have no intrinsic moral value independent of human interest - concequence of animals being in relationship with humans; Humans by nature (bc of perfection) have unique moral status => dignity; connected to personhood; Animals can be used by humans for their own purposes as means, objects, instruments, property (instrumental treatment) Modern view: It is a result of scientific discoveries at the turn of the 20th century and contemporary research; Evulotionary theory => our species shares evalutionary ancestors with animals; Genetics - there is a far-reaching genetic similarity between humans and other species; Zoology, evolutionary psychology: the "unique" abilities of humans are an evolved form of animal abilities; Consequence => there is no clear qualitative difference between humans and animals. Moral implications: Animals have intrinsic (autotelic) moral value – independent of humns; They have morally relevant qualities => ability to feel, consciousness – if we know that they have ability to feel – not everything can be done to them; The moral value of animals in not a priori lower than that of humans; The moral value of animals does not allow them to be used freely just for human purposes; If they (animals) have moral value or moral status, they should be taken in acount seriously in ethics; we hould think how we treat animals in such ways like justice, autonomy, welfare, etc. Morally relevant animal characteristics, modern view: Extended nervous system and conscious experience of the world (pain, suffering, stress, joy, etc.); Characteristic behavioural patterns directed towards the well-being; Including social bonds and relationships with other group members; creating members, mentally suffer, if disconnected from them; Higher species have biographical awareness – they are aware of their singular identity, ape probably knows that he/her is him/herself. Critical reflection on human/animal differences an moral status:  We usually associate X's moral status with morally relevant facts about X's life/mental life; Facts about the life/mental life of many beings (including human beings) are mysterious – hard to judge mental life, observe it, etc.; => The mystery of ignorance: we know that we don't know XYZ, but we also don't know that we don't know ABC. XYZ – how organic matter came into being? ABC – Aristotle did not know that he did not know what laws of nature there are Problem in this context showed in "What is it like to be a bat?" (1974) - thought experiment: Mental life of other creatures is comprehensible to humans only, if their life resembles ours. => concequence – there may be life forms whose mind will be permanently "inaccessible" to us in cognitive sense. Peter Godfrey-Smith, a researcher of the minds of octopuses: Consciousness has evolved in two distinct ways throughout history; Have highly developed nervous system 500 million nerve cells (snails have 10,000; cats have 700 million); The consciousness and nervous sustem of octopuses are decentralized, the limbs are highly innervated and capable of autonomy and even have taste receptors; Octopuses exhibit a range of intelligent behaivours – can open a jar, can turn the light off using ink. Concider photo-scientific data on quasi-conscious plant responses ("the hidden life of trees") Frans de Waal: Primates (as well as other highly intelligent mammals) function within moral systems; This includes, among other things, helping elderly and sick, alturistic behaviour towards other species, and a sense of justice. => e.g. Alpha male issues Also have to concider possible contact with an extraterrestrial species and questions about its life/mental life and moral status and moral views. Conclusion - a host of problems: => cognitive access to moral facts about animals; => panphsychism? - we concider all living have some mental life; => conflict or views with other species? => anthropomorphism - we can only project our vision on other forms of moral life. Methodological status and assumptions: The concept: Etymology: gr. Bios (life) + ethos (behavior) Understanding: Interdisciplinary reflections on the social and moral dimensions of the sciences and technologies involved in interacting with living organisms and the biosphere as a whole. => before you judge, have to first know about a technology itself. If we concider pros and cons of abortion - need to understand what is abortion about before making ethical conclusions. Introduction to the term: Fritz Jahr (1924) Field: Human life (abortion, euthanasia, life extension), procreation ethics (contraception, assisted procreation, natalism vs. Anti-natalism), medical ethics (transplantations, allocation of medical recourses), advanced and future biotechnologies (cloning, gene therapy, genetic modification), animal ethics (human-animal relationship, value of animals, use of animals, vegetarianism/veganism, animal rights), enviromental ethics and ecology, ethics of biological reasearch, etc. Context: Rapid development of life sciences and broad bioengeneering/biotechnology in the 20th century, discoveries in evolutionary biology, genetics, etc. Justification=> modern possibilities of biotechnological tools raise ambiguous consequences for the well-being of living organisms and may lead to conflicts with other values concidered socially and morally important (justice, autonomy, dignity), as well as to the destrution/disturbance of the functioning of the biosphere => the need for tools to analyze and resolve such conflicts, since "intuitive" solutions are insufficient. Additional assumptions (comparing to general ethics): Interdisciplinarity - bioethics is a combination of ethical reflection and empirical knowledge (biological and bioechological sciences) Practical ("polotical") nature - bioethics is subordinated to the requirements of practice, seeks to regulate socially sensitive issues. Pluralism - modern societies have competing moral beliefs, value systems and religions, and conflicts between them are resolved within the framework of a democratic rule of law. => these assumptions shift the focus from theory to social practice; Models of doing bioethics: Positivist model - everything that is technically possible should be allowed; The applied model - bioethics understood as the application of ethical theory to problems typical of the field;  Processual-procedural model - bioethics should be understood more as a practice rather than abstract reflection and should be framed in legal forms => public consultation, bioethics committees, democratic lawmaking, etc. Hybrid model - an attempt to combine the most important premises of several ethical theories, a response to worldview pluralism. B. Mepham's ethical matrix: Ben Mepham proposes a tool for practicing bioethical reflection based on a hybrid model => the so- called ethical matrix: Welfare (consequentialism/utilitarianism) Autonomy (deontology/kantanism) Justice (virtue ethics) o Ethical matrix is a "table" in which we rate (scale of -2 to +2) the degree of respect fo each of the principals in relation to all beings affected by the practice being analyzed - a positive score on the sum of the points from all the boxes indicates a preliminary rationale for adopting the practice in question; o But the ethical matrix is prone to subjectivity and does have many cons. The beginning and the end of human life. ABORTION Preliminary remarks: Bioethical reflection on abortion should be independent of emotionally/politically charged language like: prolife, prochoice, cluster of cells, unborn child, abortion procedure, etc. => but is it even possible? In part, the abortion problem is not about the validity of the "thou shalt not kill" norm, but about semantic, anthropological and axiological premises that make is possible to qualify the taking of the life of a fetus/child as a murder at all. The problem with many discussions of abortion is the mixing of two meanings of the concept of "human being": Biological meaning - belonging to a species (homo sapiens); Moral meaning - having moral value (dignity, being a person) and rights. => we can observe that different anthropological views are present in the discussion /different conceptions of the person (subject of dignity/moral status)/: Classical conception - based on the philosophy of Aristotle and St. Thomas: o makes personhood dependent on biological membership in the human species, which gives the potentiality og becoming a person (in short: every human being=person) o Leads to so-called "ethics of sanctity of life" Naturalistic conseption - based on modern philosophy, Descartes, Locke, Hume: o Makes personal status dependent on the fullfilment of a number of empirically ascertainable, traits of personhood (in short: some people are persons, but not all; there may be non-human persons) o Leads to so-called "ethics of quality of life" Two questions: Can the dispute between the classical and naturalistic conceptions of the person be settled rationally? Is there a morally significant development leap in prenatal life? Abortion can be concidered from the perspective of the weight of the premise that motivates it:  Criminal => pregnancy resulting from a crime; Threat to life => a pregnancy that may lead to the death of the woman; High probability of fetal/child impairment or disease => severe and permanent, lethal or not; Social premise => threat to psychological, economic or social well-being (is this point one or three different premises?) => this leads to a conclusion that the problem of abortion can be understood as a moral dilemma: A conflict of different values that we want to protect: Human life; Autonomy and rights of women; Social, psychological and economic well-being of women; Life and rights of the fetus/child. Principle of charity - we should have charitable attitudes towards other views; try to see other view from a lence of rationality Utilitarian law - makes life easier, non-didactic, effective vs. Non-utilitarian law - based on basic values, has a didactic nature - theach how to behave. Another context often overlooked in the discussion is the problem of demographic collapse, aging populations and the financial sustainability of the favoured, "western" model of life (social support, medical care). => we also have the issue of (over?) population and the natalism/antinatalism debate (Weather having children is good at all? Perhaps there is too many of us? Antinatalism - maybe we should refrain totally of the idea of having children?) ABORTION IN LAW Recognition of the right to abortion by the legal system does not exclude recognition of the value of human life, in this case, that of the human fetus. => recall the understanding of the abortion decision as a moral dilemma. If abortion is illegal, estimates of the abortion underground are taken from a comparison with a country with a similar culture and population or from historical data (in Poland - PRL). DISPUTE OVER THE CONCEPT OF PERSON Naturalistic conseption - makes moral status dependent on empirically obervable personal characteristics. Strenghts: Concrete, empirical criterion for resolution; Lack of controversial assumptions; Weaknesses: Arbitrary nature; Danger of the so-called slippery-slope (postnatal abortion, euthanasia). Classical conseption - makes moral status dependent on species membership and potentiality (becoming a person in the standart sense) Strenghts: Non-arbitrary nature; Consistency. Weaknesses: Equates potentiality with actuality; The process of moving from A (potentioal to become human person) to B (person in a full sense) in not necesarry (among other things, blight). Key arguments in the discussion: 1. Traditional argument against abortion: a. P1 => Killing an innocent human being is morally wrong/forbidden; b. P2 => The embryo/fetus/child is an innocent human being; c. C = Killing embryo... Is morally wrong/forbidden. => without specifying P1 it can be concidered false, e.g. self-defense 1. Peter Singer's critique of the traditional argument: a. This reasoning satisfies the form of a syllogism: All A's are B, all A's are C, and therefore all B's are C => b. But according to Singer, here appears the so-called error of four terms as in he case of: All castles are buildings, castles can be sewn into clothes, and therefore buildings can be sewn into clothes. 1. An improved version of traditional argument: a. P1 = Killing an innocent human being is morally wrong/forbidden; b. P2 = The embryo... Is a potential innocent human being; c. W = Killing an embryo... Is morally wrong/forbidden. => improved version eliminates error of four terms. => but at the same time exposes the argument to charges related to the idea of potentiality.  1. An attempt to defend the idea of potentiality (Pijas view): a. P1 = If embryo... is potentially a person, then it should be protected; b. P2 = but potentiality does not have a necessary relation here, some pathalogies of prenatal development have effect of preventing the realization of this potentiality c. P3 = so not every life in the prenatal stage should be protected? d. P4 = but the necessary relationship occurs retroactively; e. P5 = there is no human person who did not previously have the form of an embryo.. f. C = the embryo... should be protected 1. Kantian argument against abortion: a. P1 = one should act only according to such a maxim that can be willed by me as a universal law; b. P2 = to allow abortion is to allow the possibility that i myself will be put to death by abortion; c. P3 = allowing such a possibility is irrational; d. C = the maxim that allow abortion can not be willed as a universal law. 1. J.J. Thomson's autonomy-related argument for abortion: => a thought experiment entitled "sick violinist" EUTHANASIA In both debates, one of the key issues is a problem of anthropological nature: Under what conditions do we ascribe moral value (dignity) correlating with rights (right to live) to a particular human being? => Classical conseption of person: ethics of sanctity of life, every human being is a person by virtue of species membership and at least potentially meeting the criteria for personhood; => Naturalistic concept of person: ethics of quality of life, a human being is a person if he or she in fact meets certain empirical criteria. Euthanasia prosedure: In countries where euthanasia is legal, it can be performed after meeting criteria as such: The patient's wish is voluntary and fully concidered; The suffering is to be permantent, unbearable and with no chance of improvement; The patient's knowledge of his or her condition is to be complete; The doctor and patient jointly believe that there is no alternative; The indication is to be approved by another, independent doctor; The act itself should follow certain guidance of medical care; The patient's age (e.g., in Netherlands it is 12, from the age of 17 it can be decided independently).  => the moral doubt - regardless of the topic the effecta are irreversible. => are the above criteria objective or subjective in nature? Euthanasia activities are devided into the following types: 1. According t the critertion of action/omission (stop to do something): a. Active euthanasia => taking an active action that results in the death of the patient; b. Passive euthanasia => the absence of a terminal condition, the omission of theraputic action, as a result of which patient dies. c. Cessation of persistent therapy => terminal condition, abandonment of an action that atrificially prolongs life, causing mainly suffering. d. Assisted suicide => the patient takes his own life with the help indirect participation of a doctor. => the last three cases are sometimes difficult to distinguish! 1. According to the criteriation of partticipation of the patient's will: a. Voluntary euthanasia => the patient expresses or has expressed will to undergo euthanasia; b. Involuntary euthanasia => the patient expresses or has expressed unwillingness to undergo euthanasia; c. A-voluntary euthanasia => the patient is unable to express (lack of) willingness to undergo euthanasia and has not done so in the past. Moral evaluation of euthanasia: 1. Utilitarianism: does not regard the distinction according to the criterion of action/inaction as crucial => it does not matter whether utility will be unduced by action or inaction => effects - states of affairs, not intentions - are evaluated): Utility understood as a calculus of pleasure/pain or satisfaction/frustration of preferences, allows permitting voluntary and ad-voluntary euthanasia: => when suffering removes all positive value from life or when such is the patient's wish or when it is uneconomical to continue sustaining the patient's life. 1. Deontology (Kantian ethics) => it is necessary to ask wherger allowing euthanasia can become a universal right (under the test of the categorical imperative); => it seems not, since the maxim "you can/should put to death a person who is terminally ill and suffering greatly, if he asks you to do so" and "you can ask for euthanasia when you are terminally ill 1. Virtue ethics leads to an nuanced assessment of euthanasia: The virtues relevant to this problem are: /for the patient/ courage, prudence /for medical personnel and legislators/ prudence, empathy, pity, care  Assessment depends on: 1. Recognition that empathy and pity are really virtues, which is not obvious; 2. The level of courage we expect from the patient; 3. The ability to formulate a sufficiently objective judgement consistent with prudence => that a moral dilemma really is there. Ethics of human-animal relation Book - The human story (Robin Dunbar) Prelimenary remakrks: 1. Animals perform a variety of functions in human life; 2. Ethical discussion of the human-animal relation is supposed to be rational, and therefore one should keep a distance from emotionality charged beliefs, such as those that create the so- called Bambi Syndrome; 3. Our approach to animals is culturarly determined and often inconsistent; => e.g. One species in multiple functions: companion, food source, research object-rabbits. 1. Human-animal cooperation has both positive and negative consequences for animals; Functions performed by animals: 1. Food source => cattle, sheep, pigs, poultry, fish; 2. Hobbies and campanionship => dogs, cats, horses, birds, rodents; 3. Education (circus, zoo) => big cats, elephants, monkeys, bears, amphibians etc.; 4. Work - transportation, farming, herding, guardians, guides => horses, dogs, donkeys; 5. Sports and hobbies - racing, showing, hunting => horses, dogs, cats, birds; 6. Entertainment and hobby - hunting, shoting, fishing => foxes, deer and roe deer, wild boar, fowl, fish; 7. Sciense and knowledge - research, drug manufacturing and testing, learning => rats, mice, dogs, cats, monkeys. Benefits of animal use/cooperation - goods obtained by humans: 1. Food => good source of many valuable nutrients; Critical remarks: It is not clear that we can survive without eating animal products - they are recommended in child nutrition; Any reasonable diet is better than no diet (junk and highly processed food); Dietetics is a science highly susceptible to corruption. 1. Ecology => soil fertilization, waste processing, help survive in adverse conditions; 2. Economics => in many countries the basis of the economy, source of labor, fiber for clothing;  3. Moral and aesthetic => bring unique experiences to people's lives, beauty, companionship, attachment. Negative consequences of animal cooperation/use => for animals: 1. Breeding procedures - in general: Mutilation - removal or damage to body partsas a part of abreeding procedure - beak trimming, claw removal, comb removal, tail clipping, branding, horn clipping, sactration and sterilization. => in addition to suffering (lack of anesthesia), also cause behavioral disruption (e.g., feather cleaning, pecking); 1. Transport - causes stress, injuries, fractures, there may be a problem with food and water shortage; 2. Slaughter - stunned and bled while unconscious by blows/cuts/electrcution; 3. Costly breeding practices for animals - in some details: Broiler chicken - metabolic strain resulting in broken bones, heart failure, burns associated with litter containing bird droppings; Laying hens - reastrictions on movementresult in broken bones, 80% of british hens spend their entire lives in a cage in the company of several other hens, restriction of space limits natural behaviour - burrowing on the ground, spreading wongs, sand bathing; Pigs - intensive breeding implies change in diet, company of unfamiliar individuals cause infections and allergies, high density and concrete floors cause restriction of normal behaviour, can cause disability; Dairy cows - high metabolic load and feedstuffs cause mastitis, lameness, digestive disorders and infertility - about 30% of animals suffer from motion disabilities and mastitis; Beef cattle - dairy herds: separated from their mothers, fed artificial replacement milk, switched to a fattening diet, do not leave buildings and yards; Fish - breeding in hatcheries - density leads to infections, physical injuries, agression, anemia etc. Other practices costly to animals: 1. Fishing - suffering from injuries, towing, transport (re-release); 2. Hunting - stress and exhaustion; 3. Entertainment/education/science - behavioral restrictions, unnatural enviorment, forced human contact, harmfulness of drugs and other substances tested on animals, etc. Positive consequences of human-animal cooperation (for animals): 1. Coevolution - some species have evolved in the company of humans; 2. Protection from predators, forces of nature; 3. Medical care; 4. Nutrition. Various proposals for the moral ordering of human-animal relations:  1. Utilitarianism - starting from the idea of animal welfare and reducing animal suffering: a. Peter Singer, author of the famous Animal Liberation (1975); => the idea of species chauvinism => if pain and suffering is morally wrong, then why do we treat differently the pain and suffering of representatives of different species? Singer - argument of universal vegetarianism P1 The pain is bad regardless of the species of being that suffers it; P2 Pain and suffering should be minimized; P3 The use of animals is justified utilitarinaly; P4 But it's a double-edged weapon => if eating meat is not necessary, if farming causes pain and suffering, then we can and should reduce the pain and suffering of animals by giving up mean consuption (or any other animal product); C Universal vegetarianism. Problem: utalitarian calculations can also give the excuse for killing and using animals. Deontology - animal rights - Tom Regan P1 The idea of rights presupposes legal status (legal personality); P2 But we also attribute rights to people with limited legal personality; P3 So we can attribute them to animals; P4 Animals are subjects of life; Life is valuable to them; Individual animals have biographies; Animals experience the world and are not merely objects; C Animals should have rights. Problems: Deprivation of moral value of "lower" animals that do not exhibit mentioned characteristics; No animal, even potentially, can claim its own rights. Deontology - Kantian ethics Moral evaluation of the use of animals is subject to gradation depending on the intention: 1. When harm is not intentional - riding, racing, pets and working animals => one cares about the well-being of animals because it is needed 1. When harm is not related to intention, but is unavoidable => fish released after being caught, zoo and circus animals (restriction of freedom), keeping semi-wild animals (e.g. domestic cats killing birds and small mammals) 1. When harm is intentional - victims of hunting and fishing, which are sports practiced for pleasure. Contractualism => social contract theory: Idea: people agree to be a means to an end (e.g. an employment contract) under certain conditions: 1. Autonomus consent; 2. Fair treatment;  3. No threat to basic rights; 4. Benefits. => can we apply this to animal kingdom? Thesis: we can use animals, if at the same time they benefit from it and their basic "rights" are respected => the idea of ethical breeding: 1. Freedom from hunger and thirst - access to fresh water and a diet to maintain strenght; 2. Freedom from discomfort - adequate environment, shelter, access to rest; 3. Freedom from pain; 4. Freedom to express natural behavior; 5. Freedom from fear and stress. Virtue ethics The relevant virtue in the context of Animal Ethics is care => the disposition to have interest in needs of other beings and effectively care for their well-being and flourishing. P1 A virtuous man is someone who is interested in the welfare, well-being and development of the creatures and enviroment around him; P2 At the same time, virtuous person, though prudence and experience, is able to formulate moral judgements that fit the unique nature of the particular situation; C Thus, a person of care cannot be cruel to animals and cares about their welfare, but in justified situations sacrifices animals for the well-being of humans. Conclusions: In light of the retionale behind the modern view, it is rather indisputable that human-animal relations need to be revised; Especially the cruel practices associated with industrial breeding are at issue; More detailed solutions depend on the moral vision adopted (e.g. ethical theory). Natalism vs antinatalism The context for the discussion is created by many popular ideas, which, however, do not always stand up to critical reflection: e.g. "Population bomb" (1968, Paul Ehrlich), depletion of crucial resources, apocalyptic enironmental scenarios, contempt for western culture, etc. => these ideas support a generally pessimistic cultural climate Is it important to realize the nature of predictions about the future: 1. They are only probabilistic; 2. They are based on mathematical models, but the inpute is decided by the researcher;  3. They may be promoted by political interests; 4. The future is unpredictable, and models do not take human creativity into account. => Simon-Ehrlich wager Webcite - Human Progress The basic opposition in the discussion should be understood in the following terms: Natalism - claims that procreation, that is, bringing new human beings into the world, is morally decent (ar at least neutural); Anti-natalism - claims that procreation is morally wrong. Natalism: Is the intuitive, biology-based position of "most people", often adopted without much thought; This fact by itself does not settle anything: => in ethics, rational argumentation is decisive, that is, what reasons we can invoke in favour of a given position. Different (not mutually exclusive) reasons behind natalism: 1. Biological => survival of species; 2. Self-interest => the creation of people like me, copies of me; 3. Exegi monumentum => through children i become, in a sense, immortal or my achievements continue; 4. Patriotic - i recognize my community as a valueable one, and it needs new generations to survive; 5. Religious - my religion supports procreation; 6. Socio-economic - in many places on Earth, offspring secure socioeconomic status and security in old age; 7. Personaalistic - as a parent, I have the opportunity to bring into the world a unique, one-of-a- kind being: => each person is a unique "constelation" of characteristics; => but this goes deeper: each person is also irreplaceable in the sense of that there is no other person who has like-her experience and like-her 1st person, subjective perspective, and like-her personality; => thus, if i see this uniqueness as a value, I can appreciate the unique opportunity (as a parent) to "bringing it" to life. The demographic crisis: Most developed countries face demographic crisis; The fertility rate there is (well) below the generation replacement rate, which is 2.1 - that is, 210 per 100 women is required to sustain the size of the population, etc.; Lower fertility rates mean many social problems: aging populations, threats to the welfare system, the need to accept immigratnts and problems with their integration, etc.;  Data from countries with large immigrant populations is unclear, fertility of different ethno- cultural groups can vary significantly - is that a problem? The main current of western philosophical tradition was natalist, but there were glimpses of proto- antinatalism here and there: Hegesias of Cyrene (IV-III BC) - cyrenaic philosopher - inverted hedonism: since hapiness is impossible, we should avoid pain and suffering, and the best way to do that is suicide; Some may argue that there were antinatalist ideas in early christianity: since Christ was childless and christianity poses Christ as an ideal to follow. Antinatalists present Hinduism and Buddhism as important protoplasts: Both religions are profoundly pessimistic; They preach the idea of detachment from the human condition and seeing through maia (phenomenal delusion); Either by breaking the wheel of incarnation (samsara) or by attaining nirvana, both are achieved through asceticism, meditation, ethical deeds and cessation of procreation => according to Schopenhauer (1788-1860), our perceptions of the world covers up its true nature, which is the will (of life); => the life of an individual is like an emanation of the will and is doomed to disappointment, stretched between boredom and the lack of deeper satisfaction from fulfilling desires and drives; => will in itself has no purpose and meaning, therefore human life does not have it either, but we often choose different activities to run away from this perception; => since the will leads to suffering, the only solution we have is to give up the will, to consciously abandon activities (Buddhist influence). Peter Wessel Zapffe (1899-1990) - a norwegian philosopher and author of The Last Messiah (1933) and On The Tragic (1941): First antinatalist expresis verbis, influenced by Schopenhauer, Neitzsche and ecology; Man as an animal is part of a larger whole - the ecosystem; But at the same time, man is alone in nature - he has broken away from his animal nature through reason and self-awarness; => Bernard Williams: Human nature is an evolutionary mess, our aspirations and abilities do not form a coherent whole; Moreover, man's unique abilities allow him to see his condition, the inevitability of suffering and death; In order to function normally, a modern man uses defense mechnisms that blur the prospect of suffering and death: => isolation - experiences of fragility and death are isolated from normal social life (hospices, nursing homes, etc.);  => anchoring - engaging in practices and ideas that provide a false sense of meaning and mastery over reality (religion, political ideology, etc.); => distraction - providing stimuli and goals that prevent the adoption of a reflective attitude; => sublimation - the transformation of the experience of suffering and death into cultural forms, film, painting, etc.; As the population grows, defense mechanisms will take increasingly extreme forms, but they will not produce a response to the fatal split in human nature; The only antidote is to know yourself (the human condition) and trascend it - giving up the existence of the human species by giving up procreation. There are various forms of anti-natalism, but what they have in common is the so-called axiom of suffering. Therefore: => it is morally wrong to "bring in" more sentient (able to suffer) creatures; => thus, it is morally wrong to procreate; => also: for our children may increase the amount of suffering in the world themselves Different forms of anti-natalism are distinguished by different motivation and degree of radicalism: Pessimistic - focuses on the axiom of suffering and derive from it the thesis of the hopelessess and meaninglessness of human life - and therefore is a form of ethical nihilism; Hedonistic - one should minimize present and future sufferig, the best way to do this is to stop procreating. However, thies does not exclude concern for more pleasure for the living generations. => both can be more anthropocentric and pathocentric forms Ecological - takes a more holistic perspective of the entire biosphere. Emphasizes the negative impact of human activity on alll other species and seeks to improve their lot by eliminating one species (homo sapiens) All variants may have more or less redical character: Moderate antinatalism - abandoning preocreation through abstinence and contraception; Radical antinatalism - other means of population control are accepted and advocated - like abortion etc. !Antinatalism should not be confused with ethical nihilism: Ethical nihilism - nothing is neither good or bad, moral values are baseless => Antinatalism invokes a morally decent motive, thus it is an ethical position a. Pessimistic - mitigation of suffering; b. Hedonistic - concern for the welfare of sentient creatures;  c. Ecological - concern for the well-being and flourishing of all nature => Antinatalists have suffered themselves and want to spare it for others (empathy) Two of the most vocal contemporary proponents of anti-natalism are: David Benatar (1966. - ), author of Better Never to Have Been; Theophile de Giraud Philanthropic argument - anticipating the consequences that will affect the person "brought ito the world" by procreation: P1 The presence of suffering in human life is inevitable; P2 Anyone who brings a "new bearer" of suffering into the world is aware of this, and yet not ask a new bearer for consent; => disabilities, short-term and long-term illnesses, depression and other mental states, bodily injuries, experience of loss, aging, death, etc. P3 We don't know whether the new child will be happy and wether it will experience pleasure at all, but we do know that it will definitely experience suffering and there will be more sufferinng than pleasure; P4 Therefore, between good and evil (pleasure and suffering) there is a so-called basic asymmetry; P5 Thus, the following is true: 1. The presence of suffering is bad; 2. The presence of pleasure is good; 3. Absence of suffering is good, even if noone experiences it; 4. Absence of pleasure is not bad, unless there is someone who has been deprived of it. P6 So, more evil is experienced by those who have come to existence; P7 If preventing harm is morally good and is one of our basic moral duties; P8 then it is our obligation to protect from suffering a being who may experience it; P9 But we do not have a similar obligation to beings who might experience pleasure; C So procreation is immoral. Critical remarks: 1. Betanar's argument is based on utiliarianism, so persuasive objections to utilitarianism are in force; 2. Morality and moral obligations primarly apply to already-living beings, so it is difficult to speak of obligations that relate to yet-to-be-living people, and in particular to the symmetry of obligations of both kinds (but this can be debated - the so-called problem of future generations) 3. Preventing suffering is not always a moral obligation: => e.g. In parenting, in sports, in healthcare, etc. 1. Even if suffering prevails in human life in a quantitative sense, it does not necesserily prevail in a qualitative sense;  2. By developing which presupposes suffering, we can gain a new perspective (e.g., that of a virtuous person), from which the burden of suffering will be evaluated differently than when we experienced it. Misanthropic (lack of sympathy for human beings) argument: P1 There is an asymmetry between the impact of the human spcies on other species and the biosphere as a whole, and the impact of the rest of the species on other species and the biosphere as a whole; P2 Sensible resource managment may be able to meet the needs of a growing human population, but a growing human population has mounting impact on the environment and other species; P3 This impact includes, but is not limited to, violation of climatic stability (greenhouse gases), poisoning of other species with waste, pollution of common recourses (water), extinction of species, including by hunting and poaching, industrial breeding and other forms of animal use, etc. P4 So man is a kind of parasite, exploiting other species and the entire biosphere; P5 The human population - and therefore the magnitude of the human impact on other species and biosphere - will not decrease as a result of the impact of "natural factors", wars and epidemics, because they are usually followed by a resurgence of fertility; P6 If we assume that the interests os different species are equally important, then we should eliminate one species that poses such a great threat to others and the entire biosphere - a small price to pay for survival of the rest and the biosphere; C Procreation should be abandoned so as not to prolong the negative processes associated with human activity; Critical remarks on philantropic argument: 1. Nature does not accept a vacuum - the position of homo sapiens will quickly be occupied by another species => answer: fine, but it will take millions of years of evolution and that's enough; 2. We do not know what effet the disappearance of humans will have on biodiversity, it may upset the current level of balance => answer: nature coped without humans before, it will cope now; 3. Again, this argument is based on ceratin "biocentric" assumption; 4. What is criticized here is not the existence of the human species itself, but the existence of certain forms of human activity, so the conclusion does not follow from the premises; 5. Without the existence of human beings, there will be no perspective from which to judge the value of the existence of other species and biodiversity, only biological processes will remain.