phil 290 final exam

8/6/2019 PHIL 290 Final Exam

1/3

1. Let speciesism be the thesis that species membership is a morally legitimate

basis on which to treat some individuals better than others. Do you think (any

version of) speciesism is true? If any version of speciesism is true, would we

then vindicate our institutions of factory farming, hunting, and animal

experimentation? (Is it enough to allow it?)

No, speciesism is not a sufficient reason to treat one individual better than

another. It is highly debatable as to what exactly defines a species. There are

many examples of species that are not easily divided, such as ring species.

Because these individuals are unable to be conclusively distinguished asseparate species from one another, it is difficult to attribute greater important

to one species over another.

Another reason speciesism is not sufficient is that in the past and quite

possibly in the future, the definition for what a species is has and will change.

By changing the definition of a species, the imaginary lines dividing one

species from another can move changing the species designation of certain

individuals. Even though the individuals designation may change, they are

still biologically the same individual they were before the change.

Another way an individuals species designation could change would bethrough genetic discovery. Every year, scientists learn more about genetics

and find new nuances that suggests what was one thought to be one species

could be multiple species accidentally clumped together or vice versa. For

example, if a certain race of humanity was suddenly discovered to actually be

a different species due to genetic variation, those individuals would still be the

same as when they were considered human. Even though they are no long

considered human, they should still receive the same rights and moral

consideration that humans receive.

Even if speciesism were true, it would not be sufficient to allow factory

farming, hunting, and experimentation. Just because an individual looksdifferent, doesnt give license for one individual to dominate the other. There

would have to be something more that would allow for differential treatment,

such as life value or sentience. These attributes are more important than

species membership because they play an active role in how an individual

lives and acts. It isnt an individuals species that allows differentiation; its the

characteristics attributed to that individuals species that can allow for the

differential treatment. For example, a dog and a human are fatally wounded.

They should not be treated different because they are different species. Both

animals are sentient beings, however the human has greater life value

because they are able to perceive the distant and not so distant future. In this

case, based on life value, the human should receive preferential treatment,

not because of species membership. 4. Would you hang a (virtually) perfect forgery of a Rembrandt in your house?

Why or why not?


2/3

(based on values)

Yes, if I had the choice between the original and the forgery, I would choose

the forgery provided that the original was placed on display in an exhibit. By

keeping the original myself, I would be keeping a valuable piece of history and

art from the rest of the world and therefore depriving the world of the value of

that painting. The original has greater value precisely because of the

originality that went into its creation. A copy has no such value since it is an

imitation rather than an original and unique piece of art.

By retaining the forgery, I would still be able to enjoy the aesthetic value of the

painting within my own home while simultaneously allowing the rest of the

world to enjoy that same value. In addition, having the original on display

rather than in a private collection allows the public to enjoy the originality and

uniqueness of the piece, which would then give the world greater value.

(based on Contractualism)

I could alternately give the museum the forgery and keep the original for

myself, but in addition to depriving the public of the value of the original, I

would be lying to the public, which is also a morally wrong behavior. I go to

museums with the expectation of seeing real pieces of history. If I feel thisway, then it is reasonable to believe that other people go to museums for the

same reason. Therefore, it would be wrong to knowingly give the museum the

forgery and keep the original for myself.

I could also not give the museum anything and keep the original for myself,

but this too would be wrong. No matter how many forgeries, copies, or

imitations there are of the original, there is always only going to be one

original. Keeping that original for ones self rather than sharing it with the

public is tantamount to stealing it. I would not want to be deprived of such a

valuable piece of history and example of artistic ability, and it is reasonable to

thing others feel the same way. Therefore it would be wrong to deprive thepublic of the original painting.

5. You have spent a semester in an environmental ethics course. Will this

experience change your life? If so, in what ways and for what reasons? If not,

what kind of additional evidence would you need to modify the ways in which

you interact with the natural world?


3/3

As a result of this class, I have changed or plan to change in two ways:

reduce/eliminate the amount of foreign animal products I buy and be more

consciencous of recycling and purchasing recycled or recyclable products.

(1) Because of watching the video shown at the beginning of the semester, I

learned of the horrific conditions the animals in foreign countries must

endure. The two images that stayed with me for months after watching

the video was the men breaking the tails of the cows to get them to move

and the furrier tearing the hide off the animal and then seeing it lift itshead and looking around. Many of these countries are largely rural and do

not have the same emotional mentality toward animals that people of the

US have. Because of this, there are not large movements trying to gain

welfare and animal rights within these countries. Because of the absence

of these laws, animals are treated pretty much how the handlers feel they

want to treat them.

Due to disease and contamination reasons, I have always strived to only

purchase animal products labeled made in the USA, but after learning of

the conditions these animals are forced to suffer, I plan to stop purchasing

some of these products entirely or further my efforts in only purchasingAmerican raised and made products.

(2) As for the natural environment, Ive always been an advocate of leaving

nature as it is. I understand that the population is growing and it needs to

live somewhere, but I dont have to like it. There are so many natural

landscapes that are ruined without any genuine need. Trees are

harvested, bogs and swamps are filled in, and entire mountains and

ridges blasted away. A lot of this natural beauty could be saved simply by

recycling and having a sense of awareness.

In an effort to protect this, I will strive to be better with my recycling habits.I already purchase many recycled products and recycle a great deal of my

garbage, but there are times where I have been in too much of a hurry or

too lazy to wander around until I find a recycle bin. At home, there are

times when it is easier just to throw away a pile of garbage rather than

sort through it and separate the trash from the recycling. I will further my

efforts in actually doing these things rather than being lazy about it.

One of the biggest changes that I need to make is to remember to bring

my cloth grocery bags with me when I go shopping. I recycle the plastic

bags, but it would be more environmentally friendly if I didnt use them at

all. I cant count the times I forget them and come home with a bunch of

plastic bags.

phil 290 final exam

Documents