Term
|
Definition
If something has rights, then doing something to violate those rights is morally impermissible.
Nonhuman animals have rights.
So, doing something to violate those rights is morally impermissible (1,2 modus ponens).
Experimenting on animals violates their rights.
Thus, animal experimentation is morally impermissible. |
|
|
Term
According to Kant:
Do Nonhuman Animals Have Rights? |
|
Definition
No moral patiency without moral agency.
Not only do they not have rights, but they are not even members of the moral community. |
|
|
Term
According to Utilitarians:
Do Nonhuman Animals Have Rights? |
|
Definition
No, but then again neither do humans.
However, that does not mean they are not morally considerable. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
If animals don’t have rights, then we do not have any duties toward them.
But we do have duties towards animals – e.g., no puppy-punting.
Therefore, animals have rights (1,2 modus tollens). |
|
|
Term
what premise do utilitarians think is false in duties to animals: If animals don’t have rights, then we do not have any duties toward them.
But we do have duties towards animals – e.g., no puppy-punting.
Therefore, animals have rights (1,2 modus tollens). |
|
Definition
| 1. If animals don’t have rights, then we do not have any duties toward them. |
|
|
Term
| Kant says our duties toward animals are merely |
|
Definition
| indirect duties toward humanity |
|
|
