Final Exam

What is wrong with this idea?

"Playing God" has many failings. Firstly, it fails to acknowledge the forms of bioengineering created through human intervention, a connection which has existed between humans and the natural world for centuries, and allows for the modern society to benefit today. Humans have altered plants and animals through breeding techniques since the beginning of domestication; think of the crossbreeding that went into the creation of seedless watermelons. There is no way to define what the uncrossable line is without testing human capabilities, as it derives solely from personal opinion. It gains authority only under divine command theory, in which all moral rules are derived from a divine figure. Under the rules of divine command theory, God is said to be all knowing so if that were true, he would surely be aware of our bioengineering practices.

What, according to Regan, is the failing of Utilitarianism?

According Regan, the failing of Utilitarianism, which is the ethical theory that an action is morally right so long as it causes more pleasure than pain, is that Utilitarianism has no room for the equal moral rights of different individuals because it has no room for their equal inherent value or worth. What has value for the utilitarian is the satisfaction of an individual's interests, not the individual whose interests they are. People are like cups, in that it matters what goes into the cup, feelings of positive satisfaction have positive value, our feelings of frustration negative value, but the individual has no value and thus no equal value. His key objection is that is that different individuals satisfactions or frustrations are summed, it is an aggregate theory that forces one to choose the best balance of totalled satisfactions over totalled frustrations. This means that killing old Aunt Bea to gain her inheritance money without the tax and donating it to the children's hospital and splitting it with the murdering physician is good action in the Utilitarians' eye because it causes more happiness, even though Aunt Bea has no desire to be killed. Regan says this is wrong because it doesn't value the best outcome for the individual, and a good end doesn't justify an evil means.

According to Allen and Sachs nearly all women spend a significant portion of their day occupied and preoccupied with food. Why, according to the authors, is this a key component in their exploitation and oppression?

According to Allen and Sachs, most women spend a significant portion of their day preoccupied with food which contributes to women being exploited and oppressed. This can be seen by looking through 3 separate lenses; the corpeal, the material, and the socio-cultural. In corpeal relations with food, women in Western cultures diet regularly to fit with the expectations to stay thin even though the culture encourages them to overconsume. Under the material, women make up almost 75% of food-related work with grading and sorting but still have little power within the food industry. Lastly, under the socio-cultural lens, women's food production mark their identity in many cultures. Going along with this, women cannot be viewed as being one unified category and the intersections of gender, race, ethnicity, and class define who does what work in the food system. For example, white upper class women have transferred their work of feeding their families to other poor women, immigrants, or women of color.

According Bittman, meat is a lot like oil. How? Explain.

According to Bittman, there are three distinct similarities between oil and meat production —meat is a commodity, both are federally subsidized, both are subject to accelerating demand as nations become wealthier.

Why, according to Brown, is picky eating a moral failing?

According to Brown, picky eating is a moral failing because to be a picker eater is to have a significant lack of openness to new experiences and to substantially hamper one's development. Never venturing into new aesthetic landscapes leads to a sort of repetitiveness, which in turn leads to a life of blandness and banality. It also violates your duties to others because meals are perhaps the most pervasive of social experiences. There are exceptions such as being a vegetarian or a supertaster and non-taster that may be left out of the consideration because of moral or medical reasons.

What is a "sin-aesthetic" according to Kuehn?

According to Kuehn, in "sin-aesthetic," sinning lies in how we experience food as a sort of obsession and all have magical fascination, in a sort of food fetishism. He believes that the sinning comes from feelings of shame that arise from eating certain foods and that this comes about because we keep food information secret. This means that we'll indulge and enjoy the foods we want, even if that means we're ignorant about where they're coming from. Kuehn isn't advocating for sin aesthetics but rather acknowledging that it's something we do, including the fact that he's participated in this kind of behavior as well.

What, according to Singer, qualifies a thing for moral considerability? Explain.

According to Singer, the ability to suffer qualifies a creature for moral consideration. Singer believes in a utilitarian moral theory, with specific focus on the its consequentialist nature. Consequentialism ways a moral act based on its resulting outcome. Singer considers suffering to be universally bad, and thus if the result of an act is suffering of any kind, than it is a moral wrong. Since animals can suffer, they, under Singer's view, are moral.

What, according to Diamond, is wrong with the Singer-Regan type of argument for why we ought not eat animals? Explain very carefully.

Diamond summarizes the arguments of Singer and Regan by stating that they're equating animals directly to humans. On the surface level, Diamond asserts that it is nearly impossible for a human to fully and truly consider an animal as equal. Diamond asserts that this argument comes from a place of category error; by pointing out that we do not eat our neighbors, not because they satisfy some sort of moral criteria that they are sentient beings — think about the fact that we do not eat our dead, even after they cease to become sentient beings. This is not in accordance with logic, but rather to haphazard human behavior and the stories we tell ourselves about moral permissibility that is ingrained in human consciousness. Through this, Diamond explains that there is no criteria that can engulf all aspects of what makes beings morally impermissible to eat; much like how there is no criteria defining what a game is.

To the best of your ability explain Mylan Engel's argument strategy in his "The Immorality of Eating Meat."

Engel's strategy to persuade the immorality of meat does not try to convince you to believe new things, but rather show you that the beliefs you already hold should lead you to a change in behavior. His argument provokes the pain and shame associated with inconsistency — that is, if you have certain beliefs about yourself that are inconsistent with your actions and therefore false, your identity is false and you are an inauthentic human being. The force of this strategy comes from acknowledging that you are actually a bad person, but you are only now being made aware of this fact.

While Fox primarily advocates for vegetarianism, he does suggest there is one thing omnivores and meat producers can do to help the environment. What is it? Explain.

Fox claims that an omnivore's diet represents that the world is a mere resource, rather than a fellow sentient being. Simply making animal agriculture more ecologically efficient would greatly reduce environmental impact and increase global food supply. This can be done by replacing our current grain-fed system with a solely grass-fed system in ruminant livestock — which would effectively reduce energy inputs by 60% and land use by 8%.

Hardin believes we are morally obligated to not help impoverished or developing nations. Why? Explain carefully.

Hardin proposes a metaphorical story to illustrate the issues with wealthy nations offering food assistance to poor nations. He illustrates the scenario of lifeboats, representing wealthy nations, and people swimming around in the water, representing the poor. The boats are not yet at capacity, but are faced with the challenge of deciding whether to assist those in need. Hardin gives three options: let everyone in and the lifeboat sinks — let some people in, who would surely face discrimination, while risking loss of safety — or, let no one in to preserve safety of those already in the boat, but increase security of boats to protect against potential outside invasions. Hardin believes in the ratchet effect; that famine relief creates conditions where the problem, which is spurred by population growth, outpaces the solutions (food/financial aid) leaving all of us in peril.

"Macho Nachos" discusses two priming studies. What is a priming study? And, explain one from the paper.

Implicit bias refers to the attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner. Implicit biases play a large role in our judgements, so priming studies are used to enforce a subject either positively or negatively by using environmental cues that the subject is unaware of. A study used the same food (a blueberry muffin) , but on the packaging was described as either being low-fat or full-fat along with being contained in either a masculine, feminine, or gender-neutral packaging which created six different conditions. The results showed that the "low-fat" feminine packaged muffin fared better in terms of taste rather than the "low-fat" gender-neutral and masculine packaging. This pattern is shown to be reversed in the "unhealthy" muffin with the masculine packaging rated as tasting better than the gender-neutral and feminine packaging.

Why, according to Norcross, are you like Fred if you are a consumer of conventional animal agriculture?

In a hypothetical situation, Fred is a person who keeps puppies in his basement and mutilates them in order to produce cocamone to bring back his ability to taste chocolate after an accident. He mutilates these puppies for no other reason other than he misses the taste of chocolate. According to Norcross, you are just as bad as Fred if you are a consumer of conventional animal agriculture. This is because you are aware of the intense suffering that billions of animals face every year for precisely the same reason as Fred's puppies, which is for gustatory pleasure, yet you continue to consume the animals in lieu of a meat-free diet that would cause no ill health effects.

To the best of your ability explain Mark Post's IVM project.

Mark Post's in vitro meat uses stem cells from a cow which are put into a fetal calf serum to help them grow and divide. Having these cells grow in an artificial environment creates the flesh of the livestock without needing the actual livestock to grow. Post's hopes are to create more food security and to decrease inhumane treatment of livestock as well as the amount of greenhouse gases created from meat production.

According to David Foster Wallace, what are the two factors determining moral considerability.

Moral considerability is the idea that we consider how our actions will impact the experiences of other sentient beings. Sentient beings are often defined as beings with the ability to experience pain and suffering. According to Wallace, one criteria for experiencing pain is the actual neurological ability through brain function and chemical pain receptors while the second criteria is the comparative pain behavior like struggling or moving away from something that causes pain.

What are two reasons/ arguments for why one might believe animal suffering is not morally significant?

Moral significance is the actual value that a being has, and holds the idea that only those who can recognize and act on moral obligations to others can be members of the moral community and be considered to have moral significance. Since animals cannot be held responsible for their actions, they cannot be considered morally significant Another reason why one might believe animal suffering is not morally significant is because morality is a product of human minds. Right and wrong are concepts created by us, not by animals. If it weren't for us, there would be no good and bad or right and wrong. So someone believing that animal suffering is not morally significant isn't so far-fetched because the actual concept of morality doesn't even relate to animals anyways.

Explain one reason by Murdoch and Oaten argue that Hardin's Lifeboat metaphor is misleading.

Murdoch and Oaten believe that Hardin's lifeboat metaphor is misleading because in the metaphor, the rich lifeboat can raise its ladder and sail away, but in real life the problem will not go away simply by being it is ignored. He neglects to acknowledge the interactions of impoverished and wealthy nations via armies, trading of resources, and beneficial peace treaties and alliships. The interactions between nations can have mutually beneficial results, a factor ignored by Hardin.

What is wrong with Regan's view?

One of the major faults in Regan's view of inherent value is that the link between the subject of life and having value is just asserted, not earned. Regan makes the statements that every living creature has inherent value therefore we should treat them as such, however there is no factual evidence that shows us why they have the inherent value. A subject of life is subjective to each person and saying that every living being is entitled to "inherent value" would mean we'd be equal to any life system under this logic. Regan's view also believes that there is no middle ground between the moral wrong of harming an animal and the moral right of letting them live naturally. His view would have humanity avoid all interactions with animals, which is impractical, dangerous, and would result in more harm to humans and animals alike.

Why, according to Regan, do animals have "inherent value?"

Regan believes in the capacity for beings to have inherent moral value, which implies that a creature is automatically applicable to moral situations and moral consideration at the moment of its birth. Since animals have a subjective view on life, as do humans, Regan sees them as having inherent moral value. Regan sees this ability to experience life, in both suffering and pleasure, as being the mark of a moral agent.

What is "speciesism?" Explain carefully.

Speciesism is bias that disregards the moral significance of a being on the basis of its inherent differences, specifically in regard to its nature as being non-human. Regan compares our treatment of species to the oppression of marginalized groups in the past and present. Since his views already establish animals as being morally equivalent to humans, it follows that treating them as lesser beings demonstrates a moral wrong and an act of chosen ignorance.

What is the argument from animal welfare?

The argument from animal welfare is as follows: Animal agriculture causes very large amounts of suffering. We ought not cause suffering to others without adequate reason. There is no adequate reason for animal agriculture, for their use in scientific study, or for sport and commercial hunting and trapping. Therefore, we ought to adopt a non-meat diet.

What, according to Regan, is the "fundamental wrong?"

The fundamental wrong, according to Reagan, is that humans treat animals as resources and not as moral agents. By using them solely for our own benefit, we dismiss the existence of their ability to experience life, and thus cannot say we are acting in the moral right.

How is the Precautionary Principle open to interpretation?

The precautionary principle, which states that when there is a scientific uncertainty about risk the product should restricted until it is demonstrated to be safe, is open to interpretation. However, how can one assert that something is proven to be safe? What kind of criteria would we use to consider something safe? Science does not prove certainty, it simply produces stronger, more compelling evidence. Science reduces the likeliness of harm, but does not entirely eliminate it.

What is a challenge that so-called "third wave" coffee faces?

Third wave coffee emphasizes artisanal roasting and commitment to ethical practices to fight against commercialization and commodification. The problem third wave coffee faces is whether it is possible to be capitalist while also remaining committed to some kind of ethics in business practices, or if success requires placing the value of profits over people. This can be put into two categories, ethics and aesthetics. As a business grows, matters like ethical sourcing, which is a key component of third wave coffee, becomes increasingly difficult. There is a question of whether organic practices work on large-scale industrial farms while keeping fair trade in the fields of coffee beans so poor workers aren't exploited. The aesthetics question is one of uniqueness. Can a third wave coffee shop maintain their use of unique beans and new experiences and standards while continuing to grow?

What does it mean to say that bio/genetic engineering is "playing God?"

To call bioengineering "playing God" is to imply that intervening in otherwise natural processes demonstrates a form of hubris, or critical arrogance, that puts oneself in a role that is beyond the limits of what humanity should do. This line assumes the existence of a line that humanity should not cross, but does not define or acknowledge the source of this line, nor its precise nature.