Applied Discussion 3 Applying Deontology
In this Module, you have learned about Deontology and spent time thinking about an article written on your applied ethics topic from a deontological perspective. In your initial post, you must do the following:
Clearly explain the author's position on your topic (animal rights, euthanasia, or global poverty). This should be formatted like a thesis statement (e.g., Regan believes that it is wrong to ....).
Clearly explain the author's reasons in support of this position. Make sure to do so well enough that your classmates who are working on another topic understand the author's argument as well as how it counts as a deontological argument.
Then, state whether you agree with the author's conclusion and explain why or why not.
Regan starts by arguing that people tend to believe that animals are incapable of feeling pain, and because humans can announce when they’re in pain, it is therefore considered morally wrong to harm humans than an animal. This falls under indirect duty views, this type of thinking suggests that animals have no ties to humans unlike the ties humans have to their own species. Regan goes to further explains that disregarding the feelings of pain that animals experience is morally wrong in itself, as is indirect duty.
Furthermore, Regan proposes a second view, known as contractarianism. Although this view lacks many merits, he admits to agree with his view of inherent value. It is argued that humans are able to understand rules; they are able to practice moral behaviors, and avoid engaging in immoral acts. In other words, humans have every right to be treated with respect. Regan points out, however, that this is problematic, since children don’t necessarily have the same level of understanding on the level of adults, and therefore this view cannot be applied. Even so, children do have the right to protection simply because they have parents or guardians that take on these responsibilities. However, Regan argues that if this is true with children, why can’t this also be true with animals? Especially since animals also don’t have the same level of thinking as an average adult.
Lastly, he explains the cruelty kindness view, which states that our behavior towards animals is fine as long as we aren’t cruel to them. As Regan points out, being kind or not being cruel does not guarantee right action. For example: when someone experiments on animals, the use of cruelty methods does not mean that the experiment is morally right or even permissible.
The author’s arguments count as deontological argument because Regan approached his arguments mainly focusing on rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, without any other considerations.
To conclude, I do agree with Regan’s perspective on the rights view, since it examines the concept of equality, and it explores the concept of treating animals and humans appropriately. If a living being can experience life, then it is most likely that it can feel both pain and pleasure. Then it is only fair that animals should be treated as equals.
Option 2
Deontology and Animal Rights
Kant's felt that humans were rational and was the reason as to why they were to be treated as a 'person': meaning that a humans value was to a degree superior to that of any other animal, again due to our rational thinking. Even with this being said he still argued that we still had an indirect duty towards animals. He felt that basically animals deserve to be treated justly and not be pawns to our game.
He brought up two theories to support his stance: the kindness-cruelty view and utilitarianism. In terms of the 'kindness-cruelty' approach: its ok to be kind to said animal and not be cruel/abusive; Do not think that because we show kindness and not be cruel that will give us answers to questions about if its morally right or wrong. And with the Utilitarianism view: basically that we must find an action that balances satisfaction and frustrations for everyone that may be affected by the outcome. Like every great plan, it has its flaws. However, I feel like i agree with his stance in things. I feel like its a good bases to work off of. I feel like we humans are the most complex creatures and it makes sense that our expectations we have for one another in a mental level shouldn't be the same as a dogs. Example, we cannot get mad that a dog forgot a birthday or a rabbit not saying excuse me when crossing ones path, so of course we will treat them different. However, having the duty to treat them rightful and respectful is a must for it is the right thing to do.
Option 3
Clearly explain the author's position on your topic (animal rights, euthanasia, or global poverty). This should be formatted like a thesis statement (e.g., Regan believes that it is wrong to ....).
· Velleman believes euthanasia is morally permissible under certain circumstances. In the article “A Right of Self Termination” he argued that people do not have a fundamental right to chose between life and death situations. However, he does understand that in some circumstances that it should be take into consideration. Moreover, in the beginning of the article he mentioned that when he got cancer it shaped his view on smoking and later euthanasia. Velleman believes that euthanasia has to be clearly permissible in order for it to be okay. For instance, if a patient is in a lot of pain and wishes to die with dignity. Velleman argued that dying with dignity is not to die in a dignified way. However, if a patient can no longer continue to live with dignity, then their death is morally justified.
Clearly explain the author's reasons in support of this position. Make sure to do so well enough that your classmates who are working on another topic understand the author's argument as well as how it counts as a deontological argument.
· Velleman supports his position on Euthanasia by independent value. Independent value isn’t based on one’s own opinion of his/her dignity. Velleman argued in the article that one’s life has independent value and a right to die is the right “to live and die in the light of his own convictions about why his life is valuable and where its value lies”.
Then, state whether you agree with the author's conclusion and explain why or why not
· I agree with Velleman’s conclusion because I think death is morally permissible to individuals under certain circumstances. For instance, if a patient has cancer and there is nothing else the doctors can do other than make them “comfortable” in hospice. Why don’t they have the right to die? Why should they remain in extraordinary pain leading up to their death?
.png)