RESPOND to at least two of your peers' posts:
Megan Bretz
Option B:
Utilitarian's think that some humans are morally equal to some animals. In your own words, what exactly do they mean by this, and how do they argue for it? Support your summary with quotation from the readings. Do you agree with them? Why or why not?
Utilitarian's believe that humans are morally equal to non-human animals. Utilitarianism is a ‘doctrine’ of fairness, which is its strength. This tells us that each person is equally morally valued and of importance. It doesn’t matter your gender, skin color, your appearance, your wealth or income, our well-being is respected the same as anyone else. As the context in Chapter 9 states, we as society now a days take our equality for granted. Their moral point of view is nothing less than an objective concern for everyone whose well-being may be affected by our actions. “We all are created equal” as Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826, former president late philosopher) once said. None of us humans are better than any other species on this planet. I believe that we all have differences on the outside, but we share a commonality on the inside which is a heart; one that feels emotion. If we can feel emotions such as suffering this can support the fact that we all are equal. Utilitarian's claim that “animals count because they can suffer”. In addition, were forbidden from this theory to neglect the suffering of others. Everyone’s central moral virtues are one in the same- compassion, kindness and benevolence. The argument that they provide as Utilitarian's is that if we broaden our moral judgements we have developed, we then can focus on ourselves, or friends, or family members, even fellow citizens. Looking back at the text it states that the moral community is a membership which imposes a duty on everyone else to take one’s needs seriously, for one’s own sake. They correlate their argument that if we had no interest in things then there would be nothing wrong with having them destroyed. They included their second-class status which emphasized “such things can’t suffer, and so they have no independent moral importance. Advocating that animals however are! They are members of your moral community with the importance of their own rights. Animals’ importance does not rely on whether we care for them or not. I can agree with this because if animals can experience suffering to the same extent as a human, it’s an equalized misfortune. I can grasp that. Reflecting on the topic of euthanasia, it makes sense to be treated as equals. If we put animals out of misery due to chronic pain, mental illness, undesirable living due to physical limitations then what would make this immoral for us? Think of your grandparents. If they ask to be placed under a peaceful way out, would you say no? Or would you think of the term “suffering” and think of your dog being put down the week before perhaps as the same conception? If we are both species (non-humans and humans) and we can face the same troubles, have the same worries, feel the same fears and walk in an alike lifestyle then we are no different. We should be considered equals of the moral community. Dog’s don’t eat us and we don’t eat dogs!
post # 2
Shanirys Morales Rivera
Option A: In your own words, how does (act) utilitarianism differ from ethical egoism? Which do you think is more plausible and why? Make sure you begin by briefly summarizing both of these ethical systems. Can you apply both to an ethical situation to illustrate how they would each decide the morality of that situation?
Act Unitarianism and ethical egoism are two different ethical theories that guide decision-making in people. Act utilitarianism is a moral theory that the version of actions to consequences that only our well-being is an intrinsic value, so it says that an act is morally right because it maximizes overall well-being for most people. This means that the needs and desires of the many outweigh the needs of the one. Ethical egoism is a normative ethical theory that says actions are ethically correct because they maximize the self-interest of the individual doing said action. In other words, it is ethical to do what is in one's own best interest. Act utilitarianism and ethical egoism differ because act utilitarianism is the actions that are morally right if they produce happiness and utility. Still, ethical egoism is something a moral person does in their self-interest. The difference between both is that act utilitarianism includes more people in their considerations of moral behaviors. Ethical egoism could be seen as more plausible out of the two because more people would think that their actions are morally right in their self-interest rather than the majority.
As to which is more plausible, it is subjective and depends on one's beliefs. Utilitarianism is often seen as more socially responsible because it considers the welfare of others, not just the individual. However, it can lead to the end of the abandonment of individual rights in favor of the majority of people. Ethical egoism, while promoting individual rights and freedoms, can lead to selfishness and a lack of consideration for the ones around them. It's important to know that these are not the only ethical theories; combining different approaches influences many people's moral beliefs. As I am starting to learn, I fit into this note as a combination of act utilitarianism and ethical egoism. Utilitarianism is argued to be more plausible because self-interest can cause more harm. Even so, this is true for the most part, I do not think that all things are equal all the time, or ever for that matter. Because of this, I do not think that Utilitarianism is possible all the time, because there can be situations where at least one, or some people don't end up happy or well-fulfilled. Utilitarianism says you must make sacrifices to help someone as long as it doesn't hurt you, but what if those sacrifices are not possible? This is where I think ethical egoism takes its role, for me, where we must decide between ourselves and others.
An example would be a situation where a person finds a wallet full of money lying on the street. An ethical egoist might keep the money, arguing that doing so is in their best interest. However, in an act, utilitarianism would consider the happiness of everyone involved. Suppose the money's loss causes significant worry or financial setback to the person who lost it, and the finder doesn't need it. In that case, they return the wallet to maximize overall happiness for everyone.