ethics of resorting to lethal means of protecting animals and moral patients from immediate death

Vegan message board for support on vegan related issues and questions.
Topics include philosophy, activism, effective altruism, plant-based nutrition, and diet advice/discussion whether high carb, low carb (eco atkins/vegan keto) or anything in between.
Meat eater vs. Vegan debate welcome, but please keep it within debate topics.
Post Reply
heytherez
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2018 1:34 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

ethics of resorting to lethal means of protecting animals and moral patients from immediate death

Post by heytherez » Fri May 17, 2019 7:12 pm

Ethics of resorting to lethal means of protecting animals and moral patients from immediate death. Be wary I'm dyslexic (=
I've been kind of struggling with confidence on this one so please share yours thoughts!

When is it ethical to resort to lethal action to protect an animal from harm? If sometimes justified, what variables make it morally or immorally justified (or morally neutral) . How does the relationship of moral patient and moral agent incorporate to this argument.

(all situations it's either lethal option or nothing) What qualifies of self-defence or self-preservation applicable to duties to others?
You don't have to answer all situations but please look through them to get the conversation going!

Situation 1: Two infant babies are fighting and one infant accidentally pulls a gun on infant 2? If the only method of stopping infant 1 from killing infant 2 would killing infant 1 , justified ?
Situation 1: with Dogs instead of babies
Situation 1 with 1 critically disabled child still completely sentient and one 5 year old toddler as infant 2
(any variables make this ok? not ok such as if any of the patients are orphans/stay dogs or the agents homeless ( yea sounds horrible but consider all variables either way )

Situation 2: A crazed person with a gun about to shoot a baby.
Situation 2: with a crazed tiger mauling a baby.
Situation 2 but a crazed tiger that could maul a baby.

Situation 3 A farmer about to shoot a cow in a hypothetical where killing the farmer (any variables make this ok)#
(change killing to non-lethal rape ) (changing killing to torture )

Situation 4 A human about to shoot a cow in a world where it is known to be wrong to kill animals needlessly

Situation 5: In a world where slavery is the norm is killing a slave owner justified?


Variables worth considering
1: Intrinsic value of of agents and patients
2: Extrinsic value of agents and patients (killer's family, infants parents)
3. Relationships and duties
-A baby is a host to a pregnant mother
-A guardian has duties to their child
- A police officer is a trained enforcer of the law with duties to society (so in does it matter who kills the person)
4 State of moral culpability
-ignorance
-societal indoctrination
-moral patients lack of capacity of moral agency
-moral agent's capacity of moral agency
Method of killing is it more justified if death is instant or not justified if pain in involved
5. Consequences of action , state of action , effect on person who kills
6. The difference of exploitative and necessarily duties
7. The level of harm of taking away one life vs another (more of a Regany take I'll get to him later)
8. The difference of a lawless society and something happening within society (so for example having the liberty of calling the police vs less lethal option but I want to focus on where lethal is the only option)


SO I'm all for taking out the species variable ( as far as judging a dog because it's a dog and not because of another less arbitrary variable) but still not fully confident on this one . Marginal cases both Peter singers comparing the properties of animals and humans and Tom Reagan's version of looking at the right holders and the intrinsic value of right and right holder relationships both of them consider humans and animals of different levels of moral value are both important here , also the argument of relevance of what rights are relative to who.
The best for moral value differences of animal and human are level of consciousness , both intrinsic and extrinsic factors but Gary Lawrence Francione is concerned about what are moral virtues and I am two (1 citation at end) , he agrees that in the burning house you ought to save the dog over the 5 year old however he's less agreeable with the dog being Sacrificed in the lifeboat example as am. We can also say "humans have capacity for more happiness or appreciation of life than animals so "well-being" which is a lil vague and worth going into more seeing lets not confuse somebody high on drugs with somebody living a happy and meaningful life I quite like Aristotelian concept of eudaimonia angle to it.

(Life Boat example ) "In The Case for Animal Rights, lbm Regan posits the following hypothetical: five survivors-four nonnal adults and one normal dog-are on a lifeboat. There is room in the boat only forfour, and one of the occupants must be thrown overboard. Regan maintains that his rights theory provides an answer to the problem. Although death is a harm for the dog, Regan argues, death would be a qualitatively greater loss, and, accordingly, a greater harm, for any of the humans: "To throw anyone of the humans overboard, to face certain death, would be to make that individual worse-off (i.e., .. would cause that individual a greater harm) than the harm that would be done to the dog if the animal was thrown overboard.") It would, on Regan's view, be u morally obligatory to kill the dog. Further, Regan claims even if the choice is between a million dogs and one person, it would still be obligatory under rights theory to throw the dogs overboard. " (1) Gary Lawrence Francione on Regan
Tom Regan in one of his books actually does give an example of a life boat sacrifice https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1985/0 ... -exchange/ Tom Regan vs Singer here


1. Also Gary's take on Regan CHAPTER 7 / COMPARABLE HARM AND EQUAL INHERENT VALUE The Problem of the Dog in the Lifeboat
-https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... edit#gid=0 (animals as persons download here as I can link pdf's on here ) Or essay here if you don't want the whole book https://fewd.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/use ... feboat.pdf

Stuff I plan to read (=
n Guy Fletcher (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Well-Being. New York, USA: Routledge.( pp. 378-388 )That is regard to animals not sre how good it is (download link ) https://dl140.zlibcdn.com/download/book ... c6f0c9e29a
and maybe
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40339171?i ... ead_online

plz share anything else worth adding I remember coming across a paper in animal rights claiming animal wellbeing isn't much different to humans which I'd like to find again I think it's very important we explain what it is like Aristotle

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9399
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Mon May 20, 2019 8:00 pm

heytherez wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 7:12 pm
Situation 1: Two infant babies are fighting and one infant accidentally pulls a gun on infant 2? If the only method of stopping infant 1 from killing infant 2 would killing infant 1 , justified ?
Try breaking down the consequences of each.
Are the babies the same? What of the event itself? Would Baby 1 feel bad later about accidentally killing Baby 2? How would others feel?
heytherez wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 7:12 pm
Situation 3 A farmer about to shoot a cow in a hypothetical where killing the farmer (any variables make this ok)#
(change killing to non-lethal rape ) (changing killing to torture )
A farmer is going to have more social value than a cow.
We don't chose cows over humans.

Keep in mind it's not the supplier causing the death so much as the demand, which is a larger social issue.

heytherez
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2018 1:34 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by heytherez » Tue May 21, 2019 10:53 am

Interesting reply! , do you consider social value to be intrinsic or extrinsic in nature? So is it do do with social ties to other moral agents and patients or is it's social value set in stone e.g the value rape is wrong regardless of social or consequenceal output or is it both?
I'm quite influenced by Parfait's triple theory so I think sometimes there can be two or three correctly moral methods even if one is more preferred for the right context, but I'm still trying to string together the variables.

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9399
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Tue May 21, 2019 4:34 pm

heytherez wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 10:53 am
So is it do do with social ties to other moral agents and patients
Yes.
heytherez wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 10:53 am
or is it's social value set in stone e.g the value rape is wrong regardless of social or consequenceal output or is it both?
It's based on consequential output in terms of violating interests.

Rape is still wrong even if you drug or erase the victim's memory of it because the victim didn't want to be raped regardless of whether conscious during or if the memory persisted or not.
Unless the victim admits to not minding being raped as long as he/she doesn't know about it... in which case is it even rape?
heytherez wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 10:53 am
I'm quite influenced by Parfait's triple theory so I think sometimes there can be two or three correctly moral methods even if one is more preferred for the right context, but I'm still trying to string together the variables.
There can be enough unknowns that multiple theories are competing without any current means to break the tie. We have that in physics too. Doesn't mean they're all true, just that we don't know (in some cases there are even models that aren't differentiated at all in output so are unfalsifiable, and that's more complicated... or less, depending on how you look at it).
That of course doesn't mean that morality is subjective, just that there may be a few unanswered moral questions, and that's OK (for now) provided that there are enough answered ones to get by on.

heytherez
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2018 1:34 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by heytherez » Wed May 22, 2019 12:16 pm

So when is it ok for lethal protection ? My concern is similar I think to yours regarding violence within activism and it's effects on people/animals and if it's cause is counter-productive.
What if a dog had social value to more people and a orphaned baby didn't? Would there be a difference in hypothetical rules around babies and dogs outside their effect on others so if we consider social value to be set on stone like in the case of rape and how do we define those differences.

-And to go back to marginal cases I'm influenced a lot by it both with Regan and Singers versions. Do you think Regan is right to sacrifice the dog in the lifeboat as he thinks the harm to the dog is lesser than the harm to the people ? Or does Gary Fran have a point about this being based on unfair and non-meaningful virtues ? Bare in mind Regan is an abolitionist and I don't think his lifeboat example leads to general animal exploitation (one of the rights all sentient beings have is not not be a slave) and for Gary F while he is concerned with Regans lifeboat he does think in the case of a burning building we should save the person so there is the issue of sacrifice. (which concerns me in the lifeboat case more than the inaction to save somebody case)
So my unsolved blunder is the issue of sacrifice vs violence when is it ok to kill somebody to save somebody else and should this only be carried out in a society adapted to it or by people with some authority to carry it out? (are some moral agents more qualified than others) . So take a slave owning society vs a non slave owning society does this make a difference on the moral outcome even if the slave owning society is intrinsically wrong to own and kill slaves? and if these slaves where marginal humans like babies with severe brain damage would this be a fair lack of capacity (not killing the slave owner as they are more valuable morally ) or an unfair virtue (unfairly not acting to save the child due to unfair virtue of ability)

I love Parfit.......RIP a great philosopher and a lovely man
Yes Parfits pluralism isn't a relativist it's "triple theory" instead of cognitive relativism ,he's famous for his moral realism , his work even played a role in changing Peter Singer's views to moral objectivity . He is also a robust moral realist so it makes some pluralism needed for these gray area's. I could go on and on about the metaethical nuances within his work aswell but I don't want to get off topic , to sum it up he is a rationalist and bases his realism on epistemic norms and so forth . Really good read I'd love to attach his books but I can't attach pdf's it seems.

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9399
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Wed May 22, 2019 3:46 pm

heytherez wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 12:16 pm
What if a dog had social value to more people and a orphaned baby didn't?
The dog is maybe going to grow up to be a scientist or something and change the world for the better?
heytherez wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 12:16 pm
Or does Gary Fran have a point about this being based on unfair and non-meaningful virtues ?
As a rule, Francione never has a point.
What concerns you about a lifeboat scenario?
heytherez wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 12:16 pm
which concerns me in the lifeboat case more than the inaction to save somebody case
The difference is primarily one of social perception.
A life boat is an accident/emergency situation though, not very relevant to your question of a farmer which is an ongoing, intentional situation with societal support.

heytherez wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 12:16 pm
should this only be carried out in a society adapted to it or by people with some authority to carry it out?
That would seem to be the rule consequentialist prescription.
heytherez wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 12:16 pm
So take a slave owning society vs a non slave owning society does this make a difference on the moral outcome even if the slave owning society is intrinsically wrong to own and kill slaves?
Yes, there are right and wrong ways to correct social ethics.
heytherez wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 12:16 pm
He is also a robust moral realist so it makes some pluralism needed for these gray area's.
Why is that, and what does that pluralism mean?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests