A Test of ‘Utilitarianism for Animals, Kantianism for People’

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-27
Author(s):  
David Wendler
Keyword(s):  
Medical Research ◽  
Moral Status ◽  
Theoretical Basis ◽  
Common Belief ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Robert Nozick ◽  
Side Constraints ◽  
The Common

Abstract Many people believe that animals possess moral status, but human beings possess higher moral status than animals. To provide a theoretical basis for this view, Robert Nozick proposed Utilitarianism for Animals, Kantianism for People. The present manuscript evaluates Nozick’s proposal by identifying the tradeoffs in welfare that it permits in medical research with animals and assessing whether those tradeoffs are indeed permissible. This analysis suggests that at least some deontological side constraints apply to the treatment of sentient animals, hence, Utilitarianism for Animals, Kantianism for People is mistaken. Because Nozick’s proposal represents a prominent attempt to provide a theoretical basis for the common belief that human beings possess higher moral status than animals, this conclusion is noteworthy in its own right. Moreover, by granting equal moral weight to the interests of animals, but reserving deontological side constraints for human beings, Utilitarianism for Animals, Kantianism for People offers one of the more plausible bases for the claim that there are degrees of moral status among those who matter morally. The manuscript thus ends by considering the implications of the present analysis for the possibility that moral status comes in degrees.

Current issues in aesthetics and beyond: Revisiting lookism

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 59-68
Author(s):  
Peter Takáč
Keyword(s):  
Plastic Surgery ◽  
Social Impact ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Common View ◽  
Aesthetic Medicine ◽  
Unequal Treatment ◽  
Self Confidence ◽  
Public Status ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Common

AbstractLookism is a term used to describe discrimination based on the physical appearance of a person. We suppose that the social impact of lookism is a philosophical issue, because, from this perspective, attractive people have an advantage over others. The first line of our argumentation involves the issue of lookism as a global ethical and aesthetical phenomenon. A person’s attractiveness has a significant impact on the social and public status of this individual. The common view in society is that it is good to be more attractive and healthier. This concept generates several ethical questions about human aesthetical identity, health, authenticity, and integrity in society. It seems that this unequal treatment causes discrimination, diminishes self-confidence, and lowers the chance of a job or social enforcement for many human beings. Currently, aesthetic improvements are being made through plastic surgery. There is no place on the human body that we cannot improve with plastic surgery or aesthetic medicine. We should not forget that it may result in the problem of elitism, in dividing people into primary and secondary categories. The second line of our argumentation involves a particular case of lookism: Melanie Gaydos. A woman that is considered to be a model with a unique look.

The Problem of the Typology of Rationality in Muslim Culture

2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (6) ◽  
pp. 88-99
Author(s):  
Andrey A. Lukashev
Keyword(s):  
Modern Philosophy ◽  
Theoretical Basis ◽  
Theoretical Models ◽  
The Other ◽  
Common Denominator ◽  
Islamic Culture ◽  
The Common ◽  
Per Se ◽  
The One ◽  
Muslim Culture

The typology of rationality is one of major issues of modern philosophy. In an attempt to provide a typology to Oriental materials, a researcher faces additional problems. The diversity of the Orient as such poses a major challenge. When we say “Oriental,” we mean several cultures for which we cannot find a common denominator. The concept of “Orient” involves Arabic, Indian, Chinese, Turkish and other cultures, and the only thing they share is that they are “non-Western.” Moreover, even if we focus just on Islamic culture and look into rationality in this context, we have to deal with a conglomerate of various trends, which does not let us define, with full confidence, a common theoretical basis and treat them as a unity. Nevertheless, we have to go on trying to find common directions in thought development, so as to draw conclusions about types of rationality possible in Islamic culture. A basis for such a typology of rationality in the context of the Islamic world was recently suggested in A.V. Smirnov’s logic of sense theory. However, actual empiric material cannot always fit theoretical models, and the cases that do not fit the common scheme are interesting per se. On the one hand, examination of such cases gives an opportunity to specify certain provisions of the theory and, on the other hand, to define the limits of its applicability.

Interpersonal Communication

1988 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-246
Author(s):  
Mohammad A. Siddiqui
Keyword(s):  
Interpersonal Communication ◽  
Mass Communication ◽  
Social Process ◽  
Political Scientist ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Common Object ◽  
The Face ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Voice ◽  
Basic Social Process

IntroductionCommunication today is increasingly seen as a process through whichthe exchange and sharing of meaning is made possible. Commtinication asa subject of scientific inquiry is not unique to the field of mass communication.Mathematicians, engineers, sociologists, psychologists, political scientists,anthropologists, and speech communicators have been taking an interest inthe study of communication. This is not surprising because communicationis the basic social process of human beings. Although communication hasgrown into a well developed field of study, Muslim scholars have rdrely hcusedon the study of communication. Thus, a brief introduction to the widely usedcommunication concepts and a framework for the study of communicationwithin the context of this paper is provided.In 1909, Charles Cooley defined communication from a sociologicalperspective as:The mechanism through which human relations exist and develop -all the symbols of mind, together with the means of conveyingthem through space and preserving them in time. It includes theexpression of the face, attitude and gesture, the tones of the voice,words, writing, printing, railways, telegraph, and whatever elsemay be the latest achievement in the conquest of space and time.In 1949, two engineers, Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver, definedcommunication in a broader sense to include all procedures:By which one mind may affect another. This, of course, involvesnot only written and oral speeches, but also music, the pictorialarts, the theater, the ballet, and, in kct, all human behavior.Harold Lasswell, a political scientist, defines communication simply as:A convenient way to describe the act of communication is to answerthe following question: Who, says what, in which channel, towhom, with what effect?S.S. Stevens, a behavioral psychologist, defines the act of communication as:Communication occurs when some environmental disturbance (thestimulus) impinges on an organism and the organism doessomething about it (makes a discriminatory response) . . . Themessage that gets no response is not a commnication.Social psychologist Theodore Newcomb assumes that:In any communication situation, at least two persons will becommunicating about a common object or topic. A major functionof communication is to enable them to maintain simultaneousorientation toward one another and toward the common object ofcommunication.Wilbur Schramm, a pioneer in American mass communication research,provides this definition:When we communicate we are trying to share information, anidea, or an attitude. Communication always requires threeelements-the source, the message, and the destination (thereceiver).

Dehumanization and Mentalizing Animals

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
T.J. Kasperbauer
Keyword(s):  
Moral Psychology ◽  
Mental State ◽  
Moral Status ◽  
Mental States ◽  
Psychological Research ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Mental State Attribution ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Phenomenal States

This chapter applies the psychological account from chapter 3 on how we rank human beings above other animals, to the particular case of using mental states to assign animals moral status. Experiments on the psychology of mental state attribution are discussed, focusing on their implications for human moral psychology. The chapter argues that attributions of phenomenal states, like emotions, drive our assignments of moral status. It also describes how this is significantly impacted by the process of dehumanization. Psychological research on anthropocentrism and using animals as food and as companions is discussed in order to illuminate the relationship between dehumanization and mental state attribution.

Aristotle on the Sources of the Ethical Life

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sylvia Berryman
Keyword(s):  
Virtue Ethics ◽  
Human Nature ◽  
Common Belief ◽  
Ethical Life ◽  
Metaphysical Grounding ◽  
Middle Way ◽  
The Common

This work challenges the common belief that Aristotle’s virtue ethics is founded on an appeal to human nature, an appeal that is thought to be intended to provide both substantive ethical advice and justification for the demands of ethics. It is argued that it is not Aristotle’s intent, but the view is resisted that Aristotle was blind to questions of the source or justification of his ethical views. Aristotle’s views are interpreted as a ‘middle way’ between the metaphysical grounding offered by Platonists and the scepticism or subjectivist alternatives articulated by others. The commitments implicit in the nature of action figure prominently in this account: Aristotle reinterprets Socrates’ famous paradox that no one does evil willingly, taking it to mean that a commitment to pursuing the good is implicit in the very nature of action. This approach is compared to constructivism in contemporary ethics.

scholarly journals Understanding Urban Commercial Vehicle Driver Behaviors and Decision Making

2021 ◽  
pp. 036119812110035
Author(s):  
Giacomo Dalla Chiara ◽  
Klaas Fiete Krutein ◽  
Andisheh Ranjbari ◽  
Anne Goodchild
Keyword(s):  
Commercial Vehicle ◽  
Operating Time ◽  
Common Belief ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Urban Freight ◽  
The Road ◽  
Commercial Drivers ◽  
The Common ◽  
Printed Materials

As e-commerce and urban deliveries spike, cities grapple with managing urban freight more actively. To manage urban deliveries effectively, city planners and policy makers need to better understand driver behaviors and the challenges they experience in making deliveries. In this study, we collected data on commercial vehicle (CV) driver behaviors by performing ridealongs with various logistics carriers. Ridealongs were performed in Seattle, Washington, covering a range of vehicles (cars, vans, and trucks), goods (parcels, mail, beverages, and printed materials), and customer types (residential, office, large and small retail). Observers collected qualitative observations and quantitative data on trip and dwell times, while also tracking vehicles with global positioning system devices. The results showed that, on average, urban CVs spent 80% of their daily operating time parked. The study also found that, unlike the common belief, drivers (especially those operating heavier vehicles) parked in authorized parking locations, with only less than 5% of stops occurring in the travel lane. Dwell times associated with authorized parking locations were significantly longer than those of other parking locations, and mail and heavy goods deliveries generally had longer dwell times. We also identified three main criteria CV drivers used for choosing a parking location: avoiding unsafe maneuvers, minimizing conflicts with other users of the road, and competition with other commercial drivers. The results provide estimates for trip times, dwell times, and parking choice types, as well as insights into why those decisions are made and the factors affecting driver choices.

Dead and Gone? Reply to Jenkins

Utilitas ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 218-220
Author(s):  
KARL EKENDAHL ◽  
JENS JOHANSSON
Keyword(s):  
Recent Article ◽  
Common Belief ◽  
The Common ◽  
Epistemic Role

In a recent article, Joyce L. Jenkins challenges the common belief that desire satisfactionists are committed to the view that a person's welfare can be affected by posthumous events. Jenkins argues that desire satisfactionists can and should say that posthumous events only play an epistemic role: though such events cannot harm me, they can reveal that I have already been harmed by something else. In this response, however, we show that Jenkins's approach collapses into the view she aims to avoid.

scholarly journals Generation-making narratives and responses to diversity in Poland

2021 ◽  
pp. 026858092199852
Author(s):  
Aneta Piekut ◽  
Gill Valentine
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Diversity ◽  
Common Belief ◽  
Ordinary People ◽  
The Common ◽  
Analytical Category ◽  
Study Participants ◽  
Race And Religion ◽  
Depth Interviews

In this article, the authors move away from approaching generations as static categories and explore how ordinary people, as opposed to scholars, distinguish generations and justify their different responses to cultural diversity in terms of ethnicity, race and religion/belief. The analysis draws on 90 in-depth interviews with 30 residents in the Polish capital, Warsaw (2012–2013). Through approaching generation as an analytical category, the authors identify various differentiating narratives which the study participants employed to draw boundaries between generations, reinforcing the common belief that the youngest Poles are most accepting of diversity. Although generations are seen as the axis of difference, conditioning generation-specific responses to diversity, the accounts emerging from the interviews reveal their relational nature, as well as similarities and points of connection between their experiences.

In defence of newborns: a response to Kingma

2021 ◽  
pp. medethics-2021-107318
Author(s):  
Nicholas Colgrove
Keyword(s):  
Moral Status ◽  
Moral Sense ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Term Newborn ◽  
Moral Personhood ◽  
Previous Argument ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Original Argument ◽  
What Matters

Recently, I argued that subjects inside of artificial wombs—termed ‘gestatelings’ by Romanis—share the same legal and moral status as newborns (neonates). Gestatelings, on my view, are persons in both a legal and moral sense. Kingma challenges these claims. Specifically, Kingma argues that my previous argument is invalid, as it equivocates on the term ‘newborn’. Kingma concludes that questions about the legal and moral status of gestatelings remain ‘unanswered’. I am grateful to Kingma for raising potential concerns with the view I have presented. In this essay, however, I argue that (most) of Kingma’s objections are unpersuasive. First, my original argument does not equivocate on terms like ‘newborn’ or ‘neonate’. The terms denote human beings that have been born recently; that is what matters to the argument. Charges of equivocation, I suspect, rest on a confusion between the denotation and connotations of ‘newborn’ (or ‘neonate’). Next, I show that, contra Kingma, it is clear that—under current law in the USA and UK—gestatelings would count as legal persons. Moral personhood is more difficult. On that subject, Kingma’s criticisms have merit. In response, however, I show that my original claim—that gestatelings should count as moral persons—remains true on several (common) philosophical accounts of personhood. Regarding those accounts that imply gestatelings are not moral persons, I argue that advocates face a troubling dilemma. I conclude that regardless of which view of moral personhood one adopts, questions about the moral status of gestatelings are not ‘unanswered’.

scholarly journals The Experience Machine: Existential Reflections on Virtual Worlds

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefano Gualeni
Keyword(s):  
Video Games ◽  
Virtual Worlds ◽  
Philosophy Of Technology ◽  
Thought Experiment ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Robert Nozick ◽  
Experience Machine ◽  
Technical Reproducibility ◽  
Self Discovery ◽  
Digital Simulations

Problems and questions originally raised by Robert Nozick in his famous thought experiment ‘The Experience Machine’ are frequently invoked in the current discourse concerning virtual worlds. Having conceptualized his Gedankenexperiment in the early seventies, Nozick could not fully anticipate the numerous and profound ways in which the diffusion of computer simulations and video games came to affect the Western world.This article does not articulate whether or not the virtual worlds of video games, digital simulations, and virtual technologies currently actualize (or will actualize) Nozick’s thought experiment. Instead, it proposes a philosophical reflection that focuses on human experiences in the upcoming age of their ‘technical reproducibility’.In pursuing that objective, this article integrates and supplements some of the interrogatives proposed in Robert Nozick’s thought experiment. More specifically, through the lenses of existentialism and philosophy of technology, this article tackles the technical and cultural heritage of virtual reality, and unpacks its potential to function as a tool for self-discovery and self-construction. Ultimately, it provides an interpretation of virtual technologies as novel existential domains. Virtual worlds will not be understood as the contexts where human beings can find completion and satisfaction, but rather as instruments that enable us to embrace ourselves and negotiate with various aspects of our (individual as well as collective) existence in previously-unexperienced guises.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document