Ethical Philosophy help re: animal rights?
I didn't read it, but all animal rights arguments boil down to this... all domestic animals should have the right to food, water, shelter from extreme heat & cold, should not be tied-up or caged for long periods of time, should not be beaten or abandoned & should have medical care when necessary.
In Philosophy, what does "ethical objectivism" mean?
First, "Objectivism" is a proper name for the philosophy of Ayn Rand, which is the correction of and implementation of Aristotileanism. Ayn Rand had the balls to correct the greatest philosopher who ever lived. Second, Objectivism is ethical by its nature. "1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality 2. Epistemology: Reason 3. Ethics: Self-interest 4. Politics: Capitalism, a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. 'If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" or "Wishing won't make it so." 2. "You can't eat your cake and have it, too." 3. "Man is an end in himself." 4. "Give me liberty or give me death." Perhaps what you mean is "rational egoism"??? Because rational egoism is rational selfishness IS Objectivism: "a. Rational Egoism 'Rational egoism claims that the promotion of one’s own interests is always in accordance with reason. The greatest and most provocative proponent of rational egoism is Ayn Rand, whose The Virtue of Selfishness outlines the logic and appeal of the theory. Rand argues that: first, properly defined, selfishness rejects the sacrificial ethics of the West’s Judaic-Christian heritage on the grounds that it is right for man to live his own life; and, Rand argues that, second, selfishness is a proper virtue to pursue. That being said, she rejects the “selfless selfishness” of irrationally acting individuals: “the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action and that man must act for his own rational self-interest.” To be ethically selfish thus entails a commitment to reason rather than to emotionally driven whims and instincts. 'In the strong version of rational egoism defended by Rand, not only is it rational to pursue one’s own interests, it is irrational not to pursue them. In a weaker version, one may note that while it is rational to pursue one’s own interests, there may be occasions when not pursuing them is not necessarily irrational.'
What is the philosophical/ethical basis for (and against, if you have any) animal rights?
Animals don't have rights. Human beings have rights. Rights aren't "inside" or part of a person. They are part of the complex agreements that make up civilized society. My right to freedom, for example, is your obligation to let me speak and act with a minimum of interference. Thus, each of your rights is my obligation. And each of my rights is, simultaneously, your obligation.Animals cannot shoulder an obligation. Thus, they cannot participate in the complex social contract that structures rights.This does not mean that we should treat them any old way. But it does mean that the proper treatment of animals is NOT predicated upon their "rights." This is also why you don't have a "right" to medical care. Someone else has to provide it. If you have a right to it, then the provider, who has no choice but to provide it, is no more than a slave.
Philosophy Animal Rights: Peter Singers All Animals are Equal?
Depending on how you perceive and comprehend the question of a man having an abortion. Men can not have an abortion physically but mentally they can by having the woman to whom he impregnated abort and terminate the pregnancy therefore the man also aborted his child to me that defines equality of a man having an abortion. Just because a dog can not vote does not mean that the animal is any less than you would like to be treated. Animals feel pain, feel love, feel frightened and scared, therefore they tend to bite to protect themselves, as when a human fights another human to protect themselves. We as humans are no better than any animal, we kill, as animals kill only we kill to murder and a animal kills for food. people believe they have morals when in fact they have no morals what so ever, open your eyes and take a good look at this suffering world we as human beings are destroying it not the animals, kids are killing kids, parents are killing their kids, every person that gets angry at someone the first thing they say is, "I'm gonna kill you", when in fact they should talk out their problem. when have you ever seen an animal start a fire?, or start trouble? and if the animals are getting in our way, its because we are taking their habitat from them to benefit the human race. We as humans hunger more for dominance than any animal out there in this world, so if you ask me we are just as equal to animals, as animals are equal to us.Animals do not abort, kill their parents or their young,to where humans kill their parents and their young.We as humans kill for the kill, as animals kill for survival. So in my opinion, we are no better than animals,as animals are no better than a human...
PHILOSOPHY: humans, nonhuman animal species, natural objects and ecosystems ought to have moral standing?
Moral standing is tricky. Think of morality as having two main components: The moral agent - something capable of making moral decisions. The moral patient - something incapable of making moral decisions. Obviously, humans are definitely moral agents. Also, inanimate objects and, as far as we know, animals are moral patients. Now that that's cleared up we can get to the topic at hand. All objects have moral status, it merely depends on the moral code and the situation. For example, in deciding whether or not to abort a child in Canada it's completely irrelevant what a rock is doing in Africa. However, if deciding whether or not to abort a child in Canada using a rock from Africa implicates the rock in the situation and thus it becomes an instrument in a moral decision. If it is used to kill the child, and suppose such an act is immoral, then the rock becomes instrumentally immoral. However, as I said, it all depends on the system of morality you're applying; whether it be utilitarianism, objectivism, or any other ethical philosophies. So yes, they have moral standing, but only in certain circumstances. Furthermore, whether or not they "ought" to is an entirely different question that is a bit too meta ethical for my tastes.