Study Guide for Exam 1
Read the assigned readings and master all of the handouts.
1. State and Explain Kant's CI2. Be sure to define, or otherwise explain in a complete manner, the following terms: 'means' and 'end'. Do your best to provide an interpretation of what Kant means with his phrase 'mere means'. Provide an account of what it might mean to treat someone as a mere means. Next, discuss what CI2 implies about how we should interact with animals. According to CI2, can we treat them in any way that we want? If CI2 does impose moral restrictions upon our interactions with animals, what are they? Give some examples. Finally, discuss some objection against CI2 and/or its alleged implications regarding our interactions with animals. Evaluate the stated objection. Is it a serious objection? Why or why not?
2. Explain what Kant means by his phrase 'direct duty' in his Lectures on Ethics. According to the view presented in Lectures on Ethics, are there any binding moral restrictions regarding our interactions with animals? If so, what are they? If there aren't any, describe why Kant believes this to be so. Discuss an objection against Kant's position in Lectures on Ethics. Evaluate the stated objection. Is it a serious objection? Why or why not? Does Kant have an adequate response to the stated objection? Explain.
3. Singer discusses three or four classes of acts and practices resulting in harm to animals that he believes to be morally unjustifiable. State two of them. Then plug them into Singer’s argument schema against various current practices concerning animals:
Provide rationales for premises (2), (4), and (5) of the resulting argument; that is, provide reasons, examples, and/or subarguments illustrating why Singer believes each of the premises to be true. Finally, evaluate the argument for soundness. It's valid, so the question is whether or not you believe each of the premises to be true. Regardless of how you evaluate the argument, single out a premise for criticism. In doing so, discuss in detail what you take to be the biggest problem for Singer's argument. Describe how Singer might respond to your criticism, and then explain whether Singer's response is adequate or not.
4. State and Explain Regan's Theory. Try to explain Regan's notion of inherent value. Who or what has inherent value? Does inherent value come in degrees? If so, then in virtue of what features does one thing have more inherent value than another? State RV (the Respect View). Discuss in detail what you take to be the biggest problem for Regan's position, how he might respond to the problem, and whether his response is adequate.
5. State and Explain Warren's Weak Animal Rights Theory. Try to explain Warren's distinction between strong rights and weak rights. What kinds of creature have strong rights? What kinds of creature have weak rights? State WART3. Next, discuss in detail what you take to be the biggest problem for Warren's position, how she might respond to that problem, and whether her response is adequate.
6. Jamieson claims that "there is a moral presumption against keeping wild animals in captivity"? Describe this alleged moral presumption as carefully as you can. Jamieson then considers four types of (allegedly) important benefits that might be appealed to as reasons that "outweigh" or "override" the moral presumption. State two of them. For each reason, explain why some are led to believe that the reason does in fact "outweigh" or "override" the moral presumption. Next, present Jamieson's reasons for believing that each of the reasons fails to outweigh the moral presumption. Finally, chime in on the debate. Do the selected reasons "outweigh" the moral presumption? Or is Jamieson right? Explain.