Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
It is important to note that ethical perspectives and frameworks provide insight into how people should act morally. The given analysis will primarily address Kantian and Singers points of view on animal cruelty as well as Baiers arguments on the unethicality of trust relationships. Kant highlights the importance of personhood and exceptionalism, whereas Singer uses comparison to showcase the immorality of using intelligence, and Baier argues that threats make relationships based on trust unethical.
Firstly, Kant argues for the largely equal treatment of animals based on a number of core themes. These aspects of the framework include speciesism, human exceptionalism, and personhood (Kant, 2001). In order to discover the circumstances that Kant deems to be eligible for equal human-animal treatment, it is vital to assess these concepts. Speciesism, much like racism, is the treatment of other species as lesser than others in a dehumanizing and discriminatory manner (Birch, 2020). Human exceptionalism refers to the concept of the elevation of humans by their unique characteristics and actions. It is significant in Kants case for the treatment of animals as it relates to the fundamental value that he believes humans possess due to their unique abilities. Personhood is an extended concept of human exceptionalism, as it identifies humans as superior in relation to their self-identification, morality, and other qualities. Rationality is another proponent of personhood that Kant portrays as essential in order to realize value (Camenzind, 2021). The ability of humans to uphold morality is what Kant deems to be valuable, and thereby, animals that lack such abilities are worthless in the sense of personhood.
People do not have to treat animals well if doing so puts the well-being of a person in jeopardy. The circumstances in which the harm of animals may be acceptable to Kant reflect those in which human morality is uncompromised or may be at risk of harm itself (Amadi et al., 2022). Kant specifically provides that instances in which animals are killed painfully or are used beyond their capacities are morally wrong. The reasoning is that human well-being outweighs that of an animal due to human exceptionalism, which is why a choice between them will favor a human being.
Secondly, Singers central beliefs and philosophy are founded on utilitarianism, which can be summarized as actions that must benefit a majority in order to be considered moral or valuable. As such, Singers concept of utilitarianism extends beyond humans and considers non-human animals to be also part of a population that aims to achieve happiness or value (Singer, 2009). As a result, the judgment of value or equality may no longer be defined by arbitrary standards that are evoked through speciesism. Singer makes this argument through the comparison of sexism, which at once promoted the thought that women lacked personhood, rationality, and other capabilities of men (Sueur, 2019). As a result, their elevation to equality with men was considered to be absurd. Similarly, animal equality may be treated as unlikely due to the disparities between the rationality of animals and humans.
However, in this case, equality is measured purely on concepts such as intelligence, rationality, and ability. There are people who may also not meet these standards. The comparisons role is to illuminate the fact that the logic may include individuals with disabilities, children, and any other humans who are unable to meet certain rigid expectations of intelligence (Gross, 2021). Singer provides that the mistreatment of animals for the reasons that they lack intelligence, rationality, or autonomy may be translated to the accepted mistreatment of certain people. Because intelligence varies greatly among humans, it is an inaccurate measurement of personhood. Singer himself argues that a claim to equality cannot depend on moral capacities, physical strengths, intelligence, or other factual attributes (Singer, 2009). Therefore, Singer compares the assumption of animal identity and treatment as being measured by arbitrary factors that can be attributed to humans.
Thirdly, Baiers approach to trust defines the concept as an accepted vulnerability of the self to others. It is not only the reliance on others to accomplish certain actions but also on their goodwill in doing so. It is not the expectation of ill will but a vulnerability that is consensual and provides a conscious understanding of a potential failure in this regard (Baier, 1986). Trust relationships vary but are inherently based on acceptance, though this acceptance may be out of reliance and independence, care of ones things of value. Though they may appear unlikely on the surface, instances of non-contractual trust are common and occur throughout a majority of socio-communal interactions (Bagrahmian et al., 2020). In order to identify trust relationships that are immoral or unethical, Baier proposes a type of test to determine whether the trust is misplaced and can be compromised and harm the vulnerable party.
The unethical trust formations are often a result of threats or the hiding of breaches within the trust relationship. In the case that one party may successfully threaten another, the trust relationship is no longer moral (Baier, 1986). Similarly, if one party possesses the ability to cover up instances in which the trust contract is broken, the relationship is also unethical. However, such a test is also susceptible to limitations as it is unlikely to be well utilized in events that may be brief but still require trust.
In conclusion, Baier argues that threats make relationships based on trust unethical, and Kant highlights the importance of personhood and exceptionalism, whereas Singer uses comparison to showcase the immorality of using intelligence. It is important to note that these ethical perspectives and frameworks provide insight into how morality manifests under specific conditions. Concepts, comparisons, and identification of main problems are essential to determine the most ethical course of action.
Works Cited
Amadi, C. C., Idoniboye, O., Ibifuro, R. (2022). Immanuel Kant on Duty towards Non-Human Animals: A Critical Evaluation. International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology, 7(2), 412-417. Web.
Bagrahmian, M., Petherbridge, D., Stout, R. (2020). Vulnerability and Trust: An Introduction. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 28(5), 21-30. Web.
Baier, A. (1986). Trust and antitrust. Ethics, 96(2), 231-260. Web.
Birch, J. (2020). The place of animals in Kantian ethics. Biology & Philosophy, 35, 252. Web.
Camenzind, S. (2021). Kantian Ethics and the Animal Turn. On the Contemporary Defence of Kants Indirect Duty View. Animals, 11(2), 512. Web.
Gross, D. A. (2021). Peter Singer Is Committed to Controversial Ideas. The New Yorker. Web.
Kant, E. (2001). Lectures on ethics. Cambridge University Press.
Singer, P. (2009). Animal liberation: The definitive classic of the animal movement. Harper Perennial Modern Classics.
Sueur, C. (2019). Speciesism, anti-speciesism and animal rights. Flash eNews: the EAAP Newsletter, European Federation of Animal Science, 167, 7. Web.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.