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
Posts: 2
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
-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 ... -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
- ... 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 ... 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 ) ... c6f0c9e29a
and maybe ... 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

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests