Animals_Environment Midterm
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
New York University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
400
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
6
Uploaded by erikaforcher
Dawn Dank
Professor Schlottmann ENVST - UA 423
3/7/23
Midterm Questions The great philosopher Bluto once wrote that, "Humans are self-evidently special. So special, in fact,
that even thinking that animal suffering is comparable to human suffering is an affront to common sense." What assumptions and claims are being made by Bluto, and how would specific philosophers respond? Including both empirical and philosophical considerations.
In this question, Bluto assumes that there is a fundamental and inherent difference that separates humans from other animal species. He claims that humans are unique and superior to animals and that this superiority results in animal suffering, which is not as essential or even comparable to suffering experienced by humans. This assumption is based on a worldview that privileges humans over other living beings, often grounded in religious or metaphysical beliefs. This approach broadly aligns with beliefs found in Speciesism and clarifies that animals do not have intrinsic value just because they exist and are sentient beings. Speciesism vastly differs from biocentrism, which calls us to rethink this relationship. When approached from an empirical perspective, Bluto's statement can be challenged by scientific evidence, which suggests that animals share many of the same capacities for feeling pain, pleasure, and emotions as humans do. For example, studies have shown that many animals, including mammals, birds, and insects, can experience pleasure, pain, fear, and other complex emotions. This argument was elaborated on within various texts we have read this semester, examples being a discussion in Wallace's "Consider the Lobster" and Becca Frank's podcast. We find from similar texts and studies that it is incorrect to claim humans are fundamentally different from animals in terms of their capacity for suffering. Additionally, we can approach this claim from a philosophical perspective. Regarding
philosophy, Bluto's assumption can be challenged by moral theories that reject the idea that humans are inherently superior to animals. For example, Peter Singer argues that animals should be included in our moral considerations because they have interests and the capacity for pleasure and pain. According to his views, we should consider the suffering of animals just as seriously as we consider the suffering of humans, and he offers a three-step approach to animal welfare. Philosopher Martha Nussbaum also challenges Bluto's assumption by arguing that all living beings have inherent value and dignity and should
be recognized and respected. Nussbaum's approach differs slightly from Singer's as it is based on the idea of "capabilities," which are the fundamental abilities all living beings need to live a flourishing life. Nussbaum argues that animals have specific capabilities, such as the ability to experience pleasure and avoid pain, that should be protected and respected just as we protect and respect the capabilities of humans. To finish, there are also different arguments if we look at the frameworks of deontology under Kant and utilitarianism. Kant would likely not wholly disapprove of this principle, but it would not be suitable for humans to act unethically. Utilitarians argue that the answer depends on the calculated utility of treating animals poorly for human benefit. Aloysius Snuffleupagus is an endangered species. Thankfully, its carefully shorn fur is highly prized
for its softness, resulting in the aggressive preservation of a small community of Snuffleupagi for (humane) shearing. Discuss the types of valuing in this case, including their strengths and weaknesses, and what it might mean for the species.
Upon looking at this scenario, it is clear that a couple of value types are at work. Some of the most prominent include indirect, intrinsic, and economic value. However, utilitarianism and deontology can also be used in order to understand this case. In terms of indirect value, we see how humans value the endangered species due to a single benefit in which it provides for them, not because it is intrinsically valuable or deserving of protection due to its sentience. This relates to Kant and the field of deontology, where we learned about the principle of treating someone as an end vs. a means to an end. In this
principle, it is immoral to use another person merely as a means to an end, and under all circumstances, they should instead be treated as ends in themselves. Sadly, we often do not follow this principle and treat
animals as less worthy than humans. As Syl Ko described in their podcast, it has become a social category
that allows humans to discriminate against animals. For this reason, it can be compared to categories like racism or discrimination. Additionally, to continue looking at different values, in this case of the endangered species, there is also economic value at play. In this case, we see how, due to economic value and utilitarianism, the species is protected because our act of preserving it generates a positive utility. This
is not because its existence is sufficient to warrant such a response from humans. There is more utility in using this species for its fur and softness rather than not, possibly due to the benefits of comfort or warmth that humans potentially derive from it. After looking at this issue from multiple perspectives, it becomes clear that each approach has some drawbacks and benefits. If we look at intrinsic value, it is the most beneficial since it recognizes the inherent value in protecting species and treating them with dignity and respect; however, it does not account for the potential human benefits or environmental benefits which could be derived from using the species. Also, preserving the endangered species is likely not practical or feasible due to immoral human interests and a desire for profits, even if it is the most morally correct approach. Economic value motivates humans to take action in debatable cases; however, if this were the kind used, it would likely favor short-term benefits, which could result in implications for the species down the line. It is generally a selfish approach that fails to consider the needs of other sentient beings. Finally, utilitarianism is a better approach in this instance as it has the potential to look at both the economic value to humans and the value of the endangered species and any pain we could inflict upon them. However, the effect of utilitarianism would depend on the individual calculating the utility. Overall,
while it is helpful to utilize these individual value systems, they are not sufficient to manage this complex issue regarding the endangered species of Aloysius Snuffleupagus.
An inquisitive eater asks, "How can a steak burrito have more environmental impact than a tofu burrito? They're both the same size." Explain at least four concepts that might help to clarify and respond to this inquiry.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Several concepts can help clarify why a steak burrito may have a higher environmental impact than a tofu burrito of the same size. Some of the most significant concepts which help us explain this include carbon footprints, land use and land change, waste, and biodiversity loss. First, steak burritos have a more considerable environmental impact due to their carbon footprint, which is the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that result from the production, transport, and consumption of a food item. Animal agriculture, especially beef production, significantly contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. A great example of this is waste production from ruminant animals and belching, commonly associated with
cattle and livestock. They are directly linked to methane and nitrous oxide emissions. In light of this, plant-based options are much more favorable, and a steak burrito has a higher carbon footprint than a tofu
burrito. Another concept at play is land use and land change. Animal agriculture requires more land than plant-based agriculture. This is because it takes more resources to raise and feed animals than grow crops,
and the land used for grazing and feed production often contributes to deforestation and habitat loss. This is especially important when considering conversion and how it takes more inputs to produce animals than feed human beings directly. As a result, steak burritos may have a higher land use effect. The environmental impact of food production extends beyond greenhouse gas emissions, land use, land change, and waste. It also affects biodiversity, as animal agriculture contributes to habitat loss and fragmentation, overfishing, and other forms of environmental degradation. As human populations grow, we use more commodities and design more land for CAFOs and animal operations to meet the rising economic demand for animal-based products. Cutting and burning land and designating it for farming kills species and harms their natural ecosystems. It is also important to note that scale significantly makes steak burritos less environmentally friendly. Due to the size of these operations and the water and land they require, they often cause environmental harm. A friend argues that we should transition to a pre-industrial agricultural system to minimize the environmental and social impacts of agriculture. Describe two features of agriculture that would be significantly different, and assess the environmental and social impacts of these features.
If we were to transition to a pre-industrial agricultural system, there would be significant differences in the methods and practices used in modern agriculture. Two features that would be significantly different are the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and the use of synthetic fertilizers, for example, those found due to the Haber-Bosch process and pesticides. Firstly, pre-industrial agriculture did not use genetically modified organisms to enhance crop yield and pest resistance. Instead, these farmers relied on traditional crop breeding and natural pest management techniques to achieve high crop yields. The absence of GMOs in pre-industrial agriculture could have environmental and social benefits, as they are debated to impact the environment and human health negatively. For example, they can result in the development of herbicide-resistant weeds and the loss of biodiversity, as well as social impacts, such as the concentration of seed production in the hands of a few large corporations. However, using GMOs can also have benefits, such as increased crop yields, reduced pesticide use, and improved food security. This is increasingly important in recent years as human populations are growing faster. Also, pre-industrial agriculture relied on natural and organic fertilizers, such as manure and compost, rather than synthetic fertilizers produced through Haber-Bosch. We also had no use of pesticides, especially those similar to DDT, which Rachel Carson fought extensively. Organic fertilizers, like those used before industrialization, are generally considered more sustainable and environmentally friendly than synthetic fertilizers since they do not contribute to the pollution of soil and water resources. However, using organic fertilizers can also negatively impact the environment and society, as seen through increased pressure on natural resources and higher land use requirements. The Haber-Bosch process has enabled the large-scale production of synthetic fertilizers, contributing to increased crop yields and food production. However, synthetic fertilizers have also been associated with negative environmental impacts, such as soil and water pollution and the emission of greenhouse gases during their
production. The same is true for DDT and other pesticides, as they cause impacts on humans and other environmental ones. In the case of DDT, bioaccumulation of DDT contributed to the near extinction of birds and other species, which ate contaminated fish and later did not reproduce effectively. This is a
direct result of it escaping into the environment.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help