Ashford 3 Week 2 Instructor Guidance

Ashford 3 Week 2 Instructor Guidance

This week, there will be two discussion questions posted in the forum. Students are expected to answer both questions by posting one original reply to each prompt, followed by three additional posts on each topic responding to classmates or follow-up questions, totaling four posts per topic. The discussions are ongoing throughout the week to promote idea development and peer engagement. Students should refer to course readings and resources, citing sources appropriately to deepen understanding. The primary focus will be framing the debate through utilitarianism, exploring its implications and critiques, especially in relation to moral dilemmas and policy decisions.

Additionally, the week includes a quiz linked on the Week 2 overview page. The discussion will specifically examine the concept of utilitarianism, a consequentialist ethical theory that emphasizes the greatest good for the greatest number, and its applications and ethical challenges. The discussion will also explore animal ethics, inviting students to analyze differing perspectives—whether they align with rights-based views or utilitarian considerations—and to articulate their arguments critically, respecting diverse viewpoints. Students are encouraged to engage thoughtfully, citing relevant texts such as Tom Regan’s work on intrinsic value and conscious experience, and to reflect on moral reasoning through varied case examples.

Paper For Above instruction

Utilitarianism, as a consequentialist ethical theory, emphasizes the importance of the outcomes or consequences of actions in determining their moral value. Its central premise is the principle of utility, which advocates for actions that maximize happiness or well-being while minimizing suffering. This framework has significant implications in policy-making, moral dilemmas, and everyday ethical decisions, as it encourages individuals and institutions to consider the broader impact of their choices on the collective good.

Among the core considerations of utilitarianism is its application to complex moral issues, such as animal ethics. The theory challenges humans to evaluate the interests and suffering of non-human animals by extending moral consideration beyond humans. On one hand, utilitarianism can justify animal rights if the suffering of animals is taken into account and actions are judged based on their ability to minimize such suffering. On the other hand, critics argue that this approach can sometimes justify morally questionable practices if they result in a perceived greater overall happiness.

One prominent advocate within animal ethics is Tom Regan, who argues that all experiencing subjects of a life possess inherent value. Regan’s concept of “experiencing subjects of a life” refers to beings that have conscious experiences, preferences, and a sense of their own existence over time. This subjective experience grants them moral consideration and warrants respect for their intrinsic worth, independent of their usefulness to humans. According to Regan, this inherent value implies that animals, as experiencing subjects, deserve rights and protections similar to those afforded to humans, including life and freedom from unnecessary harm.

From Regan’s perspective, being an “experiencing subject of a life” entails possessing a set of psychological features such as perceptions, memories, and the capacity to feel pleasure and pain. This experiential capacity makes animals deserving of moral rights rooted in their inherent dignity. It also challenges us to reconsider traditional practices that treat animals merely as resources or commodities. If animals have intrinsic value, moral duties extend to ensuring their well-being and respecting their interests, which could include rights to life and liberty.

However, applying this view universally raises complex questions. Does recognizing animals as experiencing subjects of a life mean that their lives should be protected at all costs? Can there be circumstances where infringing upon animal rights might be justified—for example, in cases of human necessity? Such debates are central to contemporary animal ethics and illustrate the tension between deontological rights-based views and consequentialist approaches.

Empirical and philosophical debates continue to shape the ethical landscape, emphasizing the importance of consistent reasoning and critical reflection. Practically, adopting Regan’s notion of inherent value encourages policies that promote animal welfare and challenge exploitative practices. Legislation such as bans on factory farming, animal cruelty laws, and protections for wildlife reflect a recognition of animals’ moral significance based on their capacity for experience.

In conclusion, the concept of being an “experiencing subject of a life” provides a compelling foundation for assigning moral worth to animals. Recognizing their intrinsic value leads to the ethical obligation to respect their interests, including rights to life and freedom. As scholars and citizens grapple with moral dilemmas involving animals, Regan’s framework offers a powerful lens for evaluating practices and shaping laws that respect the moral consideration due to all beings capable of conscious experience.

References

• Regan, T. (1983). The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press.
• Singer, P. (1975). Animal Liberation. HarperCollins.
• Rollin, B. E. (2006). The Moral Status of Animals and the Ethics of Care. Journal of Animal Ethics, 1(1), 5-15.
• Cohen, C. (2012). Animal Rights and the Moral Significance of Animals. Oxford University Press.
• Francione, G. L. (2008). Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation. Columbia University Press.
• Hursthouse, R. (1999). On Virtue Ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Francione, G. L., & Garner, R. (2010). The Animal Rights Debate. Columbia University Press.
• Regan, T. (2004). Moral philosophy and animal rights. In C. M. Korsgaard (Ed.), The Sources of Normativity (pp. 319-340). Cambridge University Press.
• DeGrazia, D. (2012). Animal Rights: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. (Translated by Mary Gregor, 1997). Cambridge University Press.