Ethics

1. What is the Principle of the Equal Consideration of Interests Whatare the reasons for believing it to be true What are the moralimplications and limitations of accepting its truth

The principle of equal consideration of interests was a concept by Peter Singer which implies that an interest, despite whose it is, is still an interest. This means that when one is determining whether an action is right, he should take into account the effect that such an action will have on all the affected parties. It is a moral principle takes into consideration a persons interests rather than his individual rights. It opposes those other theories that fail to include interest in calculating the moral rightness of an action.

Peter Singer in his principle gave two examples. Firstly, if there was an earthquake and two people were injured, the first victim slightly and the second severely injured. And if the medication available was enough to either relieve the second victims pain completely or be shared equally among the two. If shared between the two, it would be of little impact on the second victim. This principle suggests that the medication be given to the more injured party. Equality of treatment in this case would be unfair.

In another example, if X has lost a leg and is almost losing a toe and Y is about to lose his leg, and the medical supplies available can either save Xs toe or Ys leg. If X is given the medication losses a leg .This would leave both of them without a leg. According to the principle of equal consideration of interest, equality of outcome which would occur would be unfair.

According to this principle, all animals as well as human beings are equal. Singer likened speciesm to sexism and racism which are wrong. Viewing one species of animals as more important than is like being a racist. Unfortunately, human beings treat some animals as more superior to others and therefore neglect the rights of such other inferior ones. For instance, man can kill a mosquito and suffer no guilt if he accidentally runs a dog over he is affected by his action for a long period of time.
The principle of equal consideration is true because no one should be treated differently on basis of race, sex or any other form of classification.

In cases where animals are used for experiments, the principle of equal consideration is not true because it lessens suffering of human being from different diseases.
The moral implication of accepting this principle as true will be that animal will be treated the same way as human beings. They will be given rights such as right to life.

No actions will be taken deliberately that would cause pain to animals and so they will not be used for food.

The shortcomings of accepting this principle as true are many and it is not applicable in practical sense. By accepting it as true, there will be a lot of human suffering because no animals will be used for scientific experiments. Diseases will kill humanity. They will also die from malnutrition and lack of proteins in the diet.

Animals cannot be treated as equal to human beings because they cannot be given all rights that human beings possess. For instance, the right to vote cannot be given to a cow. Another limitation lies in the fact that animals do not have a moral conscience and they cannot be held responsible for their actions. They cannot be judged or punished in an attempt to correct their actions. Rights are granted according to moral status and animals lack that moral status.

Singer argues that confining animals in the zoo is infringing on their rights but can you imagine what would happen if we were let to live together with such animals as lions The outcome would be disastrous with people dying daily.

During creation God granted mankind dominion over all other animals and it would therefore not make sense treating man the same way as animals. Man can decide on how to use animals whether to use them for experiments or to for food.

There is no evidence that animals feel pain or that they possess emotional feelings and killing them would be justifiable especially when the method used to kill such an animal is painless.

Holmes questions the principle of equal consideration by use of an example of a burning house. He argues that if a house is burning and in it is an orphan and a bunch of rats, it would not make much sense to save the rats and leave the orphan to die. According to the principle of equal consideration, the rats have an equal right as the orphan to live. The value that rats bring to life is much less than the value a human being would bring and therefore it is true to say that human beings are more superior to animals and as such, they deserve preferential treatment.

2. Discuss both of following arguments for thinking that vegetarianism (as least insofar as it involves abstaining from factory-farmed flesh) is not morally required.(a) In nature, animals eat other animals. For example, lions eatantelope, and fish eat other fish. We humans are part of nature, andso it is natural for us to eat meat. Therefore, it is morallypermissible to eat meat.

According to Peter Singer, eating other animals is not good for the ecosystem. However, as a critique to this argument, it is morally permissible to eat meat. According to the Darwinian law of natural selection, human beings are stronger than animals and they are therefore justified to eat the other animals. It is a case of survival for the fittest so the way animals eat each other is the same way human beings should it animals. The more reason why this is justified is because if a human being met a wild animal say, a lion, such an animal would eat him. It is natural for people to eat animals and so their actions are justified. Vegetarianism is not morally required because it also fails to take into account rights of plants. Eating vegetables implies the killing of such plants. Many vegetarians are opposed to eating meat because it infringes on the right of animals to life. Interestingly though, they are selective on the animals they want to protect. For instance, none of the vegetarians fight for the rights of mosquitoes.

The moral principle of not eating animals so as not to cause them pain is illogical because there is a chance that death in the wild is mere cruel and more painful to the animal. Slaughtering such an animal will be saving it from the pain of dying in the wild. At least human beings are more humane and careful in their killing than most animals are.

Human beings are more morally superior to animals for instance if a human being finds someone suffering from hunger, they will be willing to share their food. Animals on the other hand do not have this moral superiority. This explains why a goat would not be willing to share its food with others. Vegetarians therefore deny humans this moral superiority by treating animals and people in the same manner and trying to justify that people cannot consume animals righteously. The concept by vegetarians is contradictory since if human being were not morally superior the issues of whether eating meat is right or wrong would not exist.

If animals possessed moral reasoning, then they would be in a position to differentiate between write and wrong in which case they would be held responsible for their actions. They would stand to be judged and punished for any wrong doing committed. Humans are superior to animals since they have the ability to use moral reasoning as opposed to animals.

Animals do not have rights such as right to vote and therefore would be no problem denying them a right to life by killing them. If the issue vegetarians have against killing animals is the physical pain caused to the animals, there are methods of killing that are pain free. This then morally justifies eating meat. A variety of animals feed on vegetables so if all human beings were to be vegetarians, there would be a lot of competition between animals and human beings. The environment would be endangered and most of the forest cover would not exist.

(b) We humans have a special relationship with God, and He has,through the Bible given us permission to eat meat. Therefore, it ismorally permissible to eat meat

Most holly books like the Bible and the Quran allow for the consumption of at least some type of meat. It is morally permissible to eat meat because human beings are members of the moral community while animals are not (Dale, 2008).By creating man differently from animals, men are more superior to such animals and therefore man is allowed to kill and eat them. The bible allows people to kill animals and offer them as sacrifice to God. Since man was created in Gods image, then it is right for man to eat animals following Gods example.

According to the utilitarian view, death alone without pain should not be considered evil (Dale, 2008). When human beings die, the tragedy is the loss of a potential life and not the physical suffering. This emotional suffering is brought about by the understanding and self consciousness that humans possess by the use of language. Since God did not give animals a language, then they do not suffer a feeling of loss due to death.

Another sign that God permits eating meat lies in the fact that He created man with a digestive system that is able to process and digest the meat and therefore eating meat is something that human beings were naturally meant to do.

Hunting is good to the environment because if it is not done, animals will die due to overpopulation.
According to the Bible, killing man is forbidden because he was created in Gods image. However, God allows people to take animals as food. This should be enough reason for man to kill animals. Gods rule against killing of man does not apply to animals as well.

The bible clearly states that man shall have dominion over animals. This gives man authority to use animals as they wish whether as food or as beasts of burden. There would be no point for animals to live unless they are of use to human beings and one valid way of using animals is by simply eating them.

The body of a human being was created in such a manner that it would require a combination of various nutrients for it to be healthy. It would be morally incorrect to just feed it in vegetables only. Even though there are other sources of proteins besides meat, their value to the body is different. This makes it right to eat meat and live healthy lives. Many people have died due to protein deficiency and it would be morally wrong to live carelessly by denying the human body meat

3.Environmental value is a species of aesthetic value, Discuss.
Environment refers to everything in the surrounding. When people have value for the environment in which they live, they will ultimaly preserve and in return have a beautiful environment. According to Kaushik (2006), the greatest aesthetic value is from biodiversity. People spend a lot of time and resources visiting wilderness areas due to their beauty. Such places should therefore be preserved as much as possible for the beauty they bring. The willingness people have to pay for the aesthetic value is much more reason for human beings to value their environment. Environmental aesthetics does not only include the beauty from natural environment but it also incorporates ones that are influenced by human beings. According to the cognitive views on environmental aesthetics, having knowledge about the environment is important for people to appreciate the beauty of environment. In appreciating environmental aesthetics, the environment should be looked at by its own right. The same way that for people to appreciate art they have to some background information on Art is the same way background information on environment is required so that human beings can appreciate its beauty.

There is also so much beauty in the unusual or rare species of both plants and animals. Seeing a creature that you have never seen before is so fascinating that we wish there were more of those in our environment. It therefore implies that if we value the environment and try as much as possible to preserve and conserve it, we will be surrounded by beauty.

A non cognitive position states that if we open ourselves to nature, we will be aroused by it. This is what they termed as the arousal model. The more willing we are to accommodate biodiversity, the more it will give us some form of gratification. Human beings therefore, in an attempt to become more motivated to care for the environment should travel more so that they are in apposition to see what other places have to offer in terms of nature. This exposure will give them some sort of deeper appreciation for the environment. Seeing how much diverse beauty the universe has to offer will cause people to contribute more resources towards environmental conservation.

If we value nature, we shall be willing to learn more about its history and view its beauty from a different perspective. It first requires a deep understanding of something before you can view it as beautiful. You need to have a deep understanding of why the object acquired the form it is currently in. When we appreciate the environment this way, we will be willing to do anything to have it remain in that state if not better.

In the nineteenth century, Europe and North America made the use of picturesque to create more appreciation for the environment. This increased the number of tourists from the aesthetics that nature had. If beauty in the environment can be a great source of revenue, then it will lead to environmentalists enforcing laws that deal with conserving the environment.

Judgment is highly influence by pleasure. The pleasure that we derive from nature determines how beautiful we find our environment to be and in this regard, the more beautiful we find our environment to be, the more we shall care for it. The untouched natural world is orderly and beautiful All nature that has not been touched by man is beautiful and appealing.

The beauty that is present in the wild animals makes man fight against hunting. Many environmentalist groups have come up as a result of the judgment people make on the environment. There is a very big relationship between aesthetic value and the amount of care we give to the environment.

According to Kant, there are various ways of judging nature in an attempt to have a clear view of its aesthetic value. Aesthetic judgment occurs from the ability of the object being judged to give pleasure or displeasure. In judging an object, we also bring into account universality. By judging an object as beautiful, we expect that every other person who looks at the same object will also view it as beautiful. This in relation to environmental ethics means that all people present will be taking measures to safeguard the environment. However, in this universality concept no one is compelled to judge something in the same way as another person. The mere fact that one person likes something does not mean that everyone else should like it. Human beings differ in taste as preference. This explains why one person would view a certain animal as a beautiful pet and therefore treat it with much dignity while another views the same animal as a source of food only. However, in placing these judgments on nature, some environmental sociologists only include the visual aspect of beauty. They fail to take account of mystery, attractiveness as well as mystery all of which contribute to the fascination by the environment.

In conclusion, it is clear that value for the environment is much related to the beauty that the environment has to offer. Conservatisms see an extra amount of beauty in nature that other human beings fail to see. Environmental value is therefore a species of aesthetic value.

4. Some environmental ethicists rely on the (alleged) fact that natureis essentially teleological. Provide some examples of this, and thendiscuss why you do- or do not- accept a teleological account ofnature.

Teleology is the study of purpose, ends as well as goals. Aristotle was the first to argue that nature is teleological. This was after examining ideas of nature from his predecessors as well as from his theories and ideas. People who are teleological believe that things happen the way they do because of what the end is meant to be. Mechanical causes are not the only ones that cause things to happen but the purpose of nature also contributes. According to Aristotle, all activities are future directed. Organisms in nature develop the way they do in order to serve a specific purpose. History is a good example of teleology. Once it comes to an end, then the purpose of mankind will have been fulfilled.
According to this argument, nature brings out order, beauty, purpose, complexity as well as adaptation and these features are all a minds products. Since there is a mind that produces nature then this mind therefore defines God and so God does exist.

Things are present for a function, for example, birds have wings for flying. Another example is the assumption that plants exist so that they can be used by herbivores, herbivores to be used by predators and those predators exist so that man can use them. It is an intertwined relationship where all things exist for the sake of others. This creates a chain of purpose within nature.

According to the teleological argument, there are different parts that make up an organism for instance tissues. These parts exist for the sake of the organism as a whole. They are therefore believed to exist to fulfill a purpose. Besides Aristotle, other people who believed in the teleological aspect of nature include Plato. His focus was on external teleology. He believed that the entire natural world was a product of a craftsman who was divine and who created a perfect natural order of occurrences.

Norbert Wiener, Juliana Bigelow and Arturu Rosenblueth wrote an article that introduced the cybernetic concept of teleology. They defined purpose as an action directed towards achieving a certain goal. According to them, teleology required that for a goal to be achieved there had to be a circular causality which required negative feedback. A cause and effect would mutually cause and affect each other.

George Collingwood in his view on teleology argued that nature was like a machine which had no control over its final causes. The origin as well as the use of such nature was outside its control.
Charles Darwin was also another environmentalist who believed in the concept of nature being teleological. This he portrayed through his concepts of survival for the fittest, struggle for existence and selection. In his theory of survival for the fittest, stronger animals win in the fight for scarce resources within the environment. Those organisms that are weak exist so that they may be of benefit to the stronger ones in future. Their purpose is therefore predetermined and they is the end fulfill those purposes (teleology, Para 12).

If we judge the whole of nature teleological then we shall be concluding that we live in a teleological system. However, not every aspect of nature is systematic. All products that nature has do not possess the same level of purposiveness.We can not judge those things that do not have purpose within nature as teleological. Not everything in nature therefore belongs to the teleological system. One critique to the teleological approach to nature is that there is no final purpose in everything since some things are meant to turn. For instance in the chain where plants exist for herbivores, herbivores for predators and ultimately those predators for man, the final party in the chain does not have a purpose. This is contrary to the teleological view where everything in nature is believed to possess a final purpose (Kant  Pluhar, 1987)

According to Kant, all other organisms exist for a purpose except man. The other aspects of nature exist so that they can benefit man either directly or indirectly. This is because of mans ability to reason and for his moral capacity.

I do not agree with the teleological view on nature because not all organisms are created to serve a specific purpose or to reach a certain goal. If it were so, all organisms that are of the same species would end the same way and after accomplishing a similar purpose. For example, all chicken would die through being killed by human beings to provide food.

5. Can value exist without valuers Why is the answer you give significant
No. There can be no value without valuers.The concept of value requires some one to evaluate it. Someone who properly understands what is being valued. Human beings are the only ones who can place value anywhere. There has to be human participation for judgment to be made on any non human object for example animals and plants. The existence of valuers is what makes it possible to determine the value of biodiversity and put in resources in place to facilitate much more of it.

Biodiversity has some great ecological value. Human beings value biodiversity because of the importance they place on the proper functioning of the ecosystem. If human beings were not in a position to value the environment, then the ecological benefits of biodiversity would not be enjoyed since there would exist no one to conserve the environment.

Biodiversity has great economic value and its protection saves the world a lot in terms of money. From nature, we are able to extract important materials that directly bring us wealth. Though this is a selfish argument by humans, they are the ones who benefit financially and they therefore act as the valuers. Although the environment also stands to benefit, it is not aware of this. If people who are money minded are made aware of the economic value of biodiversity, they will invest more in it by pushing for its conservation. The more economic value we place on what biodiversity can do for us, the more we will be willing to care for it. For instance, the moment people realize that some trees have medicinal value they become forest promoters. Doctors are able to do research and come up with benefits of certain trees for instance they were able to produce asprin, which is the most used over the counter drug from willow twigs. More than three thousand antibiotics are made from microorganisms.

More of the economic value of biodiversity is in tourism and industrial harvesting. One of the problems in attempting to find out the economic value of organisms lies in the fact that we cannot calculate their present and future value. Human encroachment on the environment is reduced because of the value placed on environments. Environmentalists spend billions trying to come up with better and sustainable ways of having the environment protected.

As human beings, we are able to place value on biodiversity with regards to their social amenity value. It can make peoples lives better and cause them to live lives with greater levels of fulfillment. It is this ecosystem that makes people lead descent lives. It provides them with materials to construct descent housing, eat descent meals and also have clean water for consumption.

Biodiversity constitutes great aesthetic value. It has such profound beauty. Animals, plants, landscapes all provide appealing scenes that in very many cases inspire artists to a very large degree. Beautiful landscapes attract people from far regions who come as tourists and we are aware of the great economic value tourists bring. Biodiversity gives people pleasure because of its beauty. The more beautiful you find nature, the more it will move you and not just inspire your eyes but also your soul. It therefore affects people spiritually.

It might sound strange but biodiversity has spiritual value. Some religions have sacred places of worship in such places as mountains or forests. Biodiversity is therefore very crucial in their spiritual lives (Zumbach, 1989). God also in the creation of the universe and also as portrayed in the bible put man in charge so that he could value the environment and take care of it. There is some relationship between the soul and spirituality and the fact that the beauty that nature holds can be able to move someones soul them the persons spirituality is largely affected by nature and biodiversity in general.
If there were no teachers in schools to give value to students performance by grading them, then there would be no importance of education. In that same case, if there were no doctors to tell us about importance of living healthy lives and eating correct diet, them human beings would probably neglect themselves and live carelessly. Having the knowledge about things and being able to value them is what makes us place more value in those things.

Biodiversity also largely provides scientific value to mankind. Animals are used in science laboratories to try and come up with medication for various ailments. If there were no animals for such tests to be conducted on, then human beings would be in great danger. The survival of each species should be protected since science is a continues process and scientists are not aware of which species they will require next. Life science can only be built on a variety of species. It should therefore be preserved in order to act as raw material for important experiments.

Such ability of the human being to be able to value the importance of biodiversity is what makes them more willing to conserve the environment. In conclusion therefore, for there to be any kind of value on any aspect of nature, there has to exist people to place such value on the object using quantifiable means that can be justified. It is therefore true that there is no value without valuers.