PHILOSOPHY - Ethics: Moral Status [HD]
Summary
TLDRIn this lecture, Jeff Sebo from New York University explores the concept of moral status, questioning why humans are traditionally considered to have it while non-human entities are not. He challenges the historical belief that only humans possess moral status by highlighting cognitive capacities shared by some animals and questioning the validity of speciesism. Sebo discusses alternative views, such as attributing moral status to sentience or life itself, and the implications these theories have for our treatment of animals, plants, and the environment. He encourages viewers to consider which theory of moral status they find most plausible and how it might affect their daily behavior.
Takeaways
- 🧸 The concept of moral status is about who we have moral obligations to and why.
- 🤔 The difference in moral status between humans and inanimate objects like a teddy bear is explored through the example of damaging a teddy bear and the moral implications.
- 🧐 Historically, philosophers have considered humans as the only beings with moral status, often attributed to human-specific cognitive capacities.
- 🕵️♂️ Rene Descartes and others believed that rationality, language, or self-awareness are what make humans special and confer moral status.
- 🤨 Peter Singer challenges the idea that only humans possess advanced cognitive capacities, pointing out that some nonhuman animals may possess these more than some humans.
- 🌟 The notion that all and only humans have moral status due to species membership is likened to racism or sexism, suggesting speciesism is a form of prejudice.
- 🌱 Philosophers like Richard Ryder, Peter Singer, and Tom Regan argue against speciesism, advocating for a broader moral circle.
- 🐭 Sentience, or the capacity for conscious experiences, is proposed as a more inclusive criterion for moral status, extending it to many humans and nonhuman animals.
- 🌿 Some philosophers suggest that life itself, rather than just sentience, should be the basis for moral status, which would include plants and possibly ecosystems.
- 🔍 The implications of different theories of moral status are profound, affecting how we interact with the environment and other living beings.
- 🛑 Acceptance of a theory of moral status should be based on its plausibility rather than convenience, implying that morality may demand more from us than we initially expect.
Q & A
What is moral status according to Jeff Sebo?
-Moral status refers to who we have moral obligations to and why. It is the concept that distinguishes between entities that deserve moral consideration and those that do not.
Why did Jeff Sebo use the example of a teddy bear to illustrate moral status?
-The teddy bear example was used to demonstrate that moral wrongs are not committed against inanimate objects but against individuals who have a connection or care for those objects, thus highlighting the concept of moral obligations.
What is the historical view on what grants moral status?
-Historically, most philosophers believed that being a human being is what grants moral status, suggesting that all and only human beings possess this status.
What qualities have been traditionally associated with human beings to justify their moral status?
-Qualities such as rationality, language, self-awareness, and other sophisticated cognitive capacities have been traditionally associated with human beings to justify their moral status.
Who is Peter Singer, and what argument does he make regarding moral status?
-Peter Singer is a philosopher who argues that the capacities traditionally attributed to human beings to justify their moral status can also be found in some nonhuman animals, challenging the idea that only human beings possess these capacities.
What is speciesism, and why do philosophers like Richard Ryder and Peter Singer argue against it?
-Speciesism is the discrimination in favor of one's own species (humans) over others based solely on membership in a particular biological category. Philosophers like Richard Ryder and Peter Singer argue against it because it is a form of prejudice similar to racism and sexism.
What is the alternate history scenario Dale Jamieson presents to argue against speciesism?
-Dale Jamieson presents a scenario where Neanderthals survived as a distinct species, living alongside humans. The argument is that if one discovers a close friend is a Neanderthal, it should not negate the moral obligations towards them, suggesting that species membership alone should not determine moral status.
What alternative criteria for moral status are proposed in the script?
-The script proposes sentience (the capacity for conscious experiences like pleasure and pain) and life itself as alternative criteria for moral status, which would include a broader range of beings, including nonhuman animals and possibly plants or ecosystems.
Why does Kenneth Goodpaster argue that sentience should not be the sole criterion for moral status?
-Kenneth Goodpaster argues that sentience is just one tool evolution gave us for survival and reproduction, and morality should not privilege those who experience pleasure and pain over other living organisms that survive and reproduce in different ways.
What are the implications of accepting different theories of moral status on everyday life?
-Accepting different theories of moral status can have profound implications on everyday life, such as reconsidering the morality of actions like consuming animals for food, using animals for research, or treating plants and ecosystems with more respect.
How does Jeff Sebo encourage the audience to reflect on their own beliefs about moral status?
-Jeff Sebo encourages the audience to reflect on their beliefs by asking them to consider which theory of moral status seems most plausible to them and how they would need to change their everyday behavior based on their accepted theory.
Outlines
🧐 The Question of Moral Status
In the first paragraph, Jeff Sebo introduces the concept of moral status, which is about who we have moral obligations to and why. He uses the example of a teddy bear to illustrate that moral obligations are not owed to the bear itself, but to the person who cares for it. The historical view is that only humans possess moral status, often attributed to cognitive capacities like rationality or self-awareness. However, philosophers like Peter Singer challenge this view by pointing out that nonhuman animals can possess these capacities to a greater extent than some humans, such as infants or severely disabled individuals. Sebo raises the question of what truly grants moral status, questioning the basis of speciesism and comparing it to racism and sexism, which are forms of prejudice based on biological categories.
🌱 Expanding Moral Consideration Beyond Sentience
The second paragraph delves into the implications of different theories of moral status on our daily lives. Sebo discusses the possibility that sentience, the capacity to experience pleasure and pain, is what grants moral status, which would include both humans and many nonhuman animals. He contrasts this with the idea that life itself, not just sentience, could be the basis for moral status, which would extend moral consideration to all living organisms, including plants and possibly even ecosystems. The paragraph highlights the ethical challenges posed by our current practices, such as the mass killing of animals for food, and the need to reassess these actions based on our understanding of moral status. Sebo encourages the audience to consider which theory of moral status they find most plausible and how it would affect their behavior, drawing parallels to historical prejudices and the importance of adhering to the most reasonable theory, regardless of convenience.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Moral Status
💡Rationality
💡Self-Awareness
💡Speciesism
💡Sentience
💡Moral Obligations
💡Neanderthal
💡Life
💡Prejudice
💡Conscious Experiences
Highlights
Jeff Sebo introduces the topic of moral status and its implications on our moral obligations.
The example of a teddy bear is used to illustrate the concept of moral status and who is wronged when it's damaged.
Traditional philosophical view is that only humans have moral status based on being a member of Homo sapiens.
Rene Descartes' argument that rationality, language, and self-awareness are what give humans moral status.
Peter Singer challenges the exclusivity of human cognitive capacities by comparing them to those of nonhuman animals.
The concept of speciesism is likened to racism and sexism as a form of prejudice based on biological membership.
Dale Jamieson's hypothetical scenario of Neanderthals to question the basis of moral status on species membership.
The potential exclusion of infants and severely disabled individuals from moral status if based solely on rationality or self-awareness.
The proposition to expand moral concern based on sentience, the capacity for conscious experiences.
Peter Singer's example contrasting kicking a rock versus a mouse to illustrate the importance of sentience in moral obligations.
Some philosophers argue for an even broader moral status that includes all living organisms, not just sentient beings.
Kenneth Goodpaster's argument questioning why morality should privilege sentient beings over other forms of life.
The profound implications of different theories of moral status on everyday life, including our treatment of animals and the environment.
The moral dilemma of continuing current practices such as animal agriculture if animals have moral status.
The challenge to consider which theory of moral status is most plausible rather than which is most convenient.
The ethical consideration that morality may be more demanding than we initially hoped.
Invitation for the audience to reflect on their own beliefs about moral status and how it would affect their behavior.
Transcripts
(intro music)
My name is Jeff Sebo,
and I teach animal and[br]environmental studies
at New York University.
Today, I'm going to talk[br]to you about moral status.
In other words, I'm going[br]to talk to you about
who we have moral obligations to, and why.
Let me start with a quick example
to show you what I mean.
Imagine that you broke into my room
and you ripped the head off my teddy bear.
Most people would think[br]that you acted wrongly.
But why?
Who did you wrong?
Not my teddy bear, right?
My teddy bear is a bunch of cloth.
Instead, most people would[br]say that you acted wrongly
because you wronged me, as somebody
who cares about this teddy bear.
So the question is, what[br]marks the difference
between me and my teddy bear?
What makes it the case that you have
moral obligations to me,[br]but not to my teddy bear?
This is the question of moral status.
Now historically, most[br]philosophers have thought
that the difference between[br]me and my teddy bear
is that I am a human being[br]and my teddy bear is not.
In other words, most[br]philosophers have thought
that all and only human[br]beings have moral status.
But why?
What makes us so special?
Well many people, like Rene Descartes,
answered this question by saying
that we have rationality, or language,
or self-awareness, or some other
very sophisticated cognitive capacity.
This is what makes us special,
and this is what gives us moral status.
But recently, many people[br]have started to question
the idea that all and only human beings
have these capacities.
For example, Peter Singer argues
that no matter which capacity we pick,
we can always find some nonhuman animal,
like say a chimpanzee,[br]who has that capacity
more than some human being,
like say an infant or a[br]severely disabled human being.
In fact, it turns out[br]that the only property
that all and only humans seem to have
is membership in the species Homo sapien.
But if we say that all[br]and only human beings
have moral status for that reason,
then how are we any different at all
from racists or sexists or anybody else
who discriminate against others
solely on the basis of membership
in a particular biological category.
For that reason, Richard[br]Ryder, Peter Singer,
Tom Regan, and many other philosophers
have argued that speciesism is wrong
for the same reason that[br]racism and sexism are.
They are all forms of prejudice,
in favor of one group over another group,
solely on the basis of membership
in a particular biological category.
Dale Jamieson puts the point this way,
to see why speciesism is wrong,
imagine an alternate history,
where Neanderthal survived as a distinct,
reproductively isolated species.
So in this world, human[br]beings and Neanderthals
live together, and work together,
and play together, and are[br]exactly alike in every respect,
except that they happen[br]to be different species.
Now imagine that in this world,
you discover that your roommate,
or your best friend, is a Neanderthal
instead of a human being.
Would this mean that you lose
all of your moral[br]obligations to this person?
Would you now be morally permitted
to use them for food, or clothing,
or research, or whatever[br]purpose you had in mind?
Intuitively, the answer is "No."
You would still have moral obligations
to your roommate or best friend.
And what this shows is that membership
in the species Homo sapien
is not in and of itself[br]what gives us moral status.
So then what is?
What does give us moral status?
Well, one option is to[br]say that rationality,
or language, or self awareness[br]gives us moral status.
But this view would imply[br]that many human beings,
like infants and severely[br]disabled human beings,
lack moral status because[br]they lack these capacities,
and that view seems deeply[br]implausible to many people.
So for that reason, many[br]philosophers have argued
that we should expand the[br]circle of moral concern
by saying that sentience,[br]or in other words,
the capacity for conscious experiences
like pleasure and pain, is[br]what gives us moral status.
This view would imply[br]that the vast majority
of human beings, and[br]many nonhuman animals,
have moral status.
And many people find this view plausible
because they say you need to be sentient
in order for it to matter to you
how your life goes for you.
So Peter Singer uses the example
of kicking a rock versus[br]kicking a mouse down the street.
He says a rock is not sentient,
and so a rock will not suffer
if you kick it down the street.
So you have no moral obligation at all
not to kick a rock down the street.
On the other hand, a mouse is sentient.
So a mouse will suffer if you[br]kick them down the street,
and so you do have a moral obligation
not to kick the mouse down the street.
Other philosophers think that we should
expand the circle of[br]moral concern even farther
by saying that life itself[br]is what gives us moral status.
So this view would imply[br]that all living organisms
have moral status.
That includes human[br]beings, nonhuman animals,
plants, even maybe species or ecosystems,
if we decide that those things are alive.
And many people think that[br]this view is plausible,
because they say that our[br]preference for sentience
is no different from a[br]preference for human beings,
or say white people, or men.
These are all forms of prejudice
for one group over another[br]based solely on membership
in a particular biological category.
As Kenneth Goodpaster puts the point,
"Sentience, or the capacity[br]to have conscious experiences,
"is only one tool that evolution
"gave us in order to survive and reproduce.
"So why should morality[br]privilege those of us
"who happened to survive and reproduce
"by experiencing pleasures and pains,
"over other living organisms[br]who happen to survive
"and reproduce in other ways."
Now obviously, which of these[br]theories of moral status
we accept is going to[br]have profound implications
for how we live our lives.
For example, if we decide[br]that animals or plants
have moral status, then[br]it will turn out that
a lot of what we currently[br]do in everyday life
is deeply morally problematic,
including, but not remotely[br]limited to, the fact
that we currently kill over sixty billion
nonhuman animals a year for food alone.
Now at this point, it might[br]be very tempting to say,
"OK, maybe all and only humans[br]have a moral status after all,
"because our lives would be[br]much easier if this were true."
But keep in mind that[br]a hundred years ago
or two hundred years ago, it might[br]have been very tempting
for white men to say,[br]"OK, maybe all and only
white men have moral status after all,
"because their lives would be[br]much easier if that were true."
And what that shows is that[br]which theory of moral status
we accept has to depend on which theory
of moral status seems most plausible,
and not on which theory of[br]moral status happens to be
most convenient for us.
It may be that we end up deciding that
morality is much more demanding[br]than we might have hoped.
But, as my college ethics professor
Richard Galvin used to say,
no one ever said this stuff was easy.
So, what do you think?
Which theory of moral status[br]seems most plausible to you?
Do you think that all[br]and only human beings
have moral status, and we can[br]kick animals down the street
if we want to?
Do you think that all sentient[br]animals have moral status,
so at least we can kick plants
down the street if we want to?
Or do you think that all living[br]organisms have moral status,
so you can kick rocks, but pretty much
nothing else, down the street?
And finally, and most importantly,
how would you have to change[br]your everyday behavior,
based on which of these theories[br]of moral status you accept?
Subtitles by the Amara.org community
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)