Killing animals vs. killing humans
Jeff McMahan, The Ethics of Killling
Why now?
- Because his argument involves some of the issues about animal minds we've been discussing.
- He paints a picture of animal life that we should examine.
_________________________
Background
To get extraneous issues out of the way, let's focus on--
- Killing humans for no good reason
- Killing animals for no good reason
We need examples for each
- Murdering a human being
- Example of killing an animal for no good reason
Why are both wrong? Is one more wrong than the other?
McMahan says:
- both are wrong
- but killing the human is a worse wrong
- he's not saying killing an animal is minimally wrong (p.199)
- this is a common belief even among people who care about animals (p. 199)
_________________________
McMahan's argument that killing humans is the greater wrong
- What makes killing wrong is primarily* that being killed violates the victim's time-relative interest in continuing to live.
- a "time relative interest" is simply an interest you have at a particular time
- before lunch your "time relative interest" in eating is greater than after lunch
- Maggie Smith just died at 89--her "time relative interest" in continuing to live was different than if she had died at 45
- Interests in continuing to live have differing strengths.
- Generally animals have a weaker interest in continuing to live compared to humans.
- So, generally killing animals is wrong, but not as wrong as killing humans.
Main job of the reading: to support premise 3
*primarily--other things that add to wrongness are whether victim consents, killer's intentions, etc.
_________________________
Making comparisons
- we can compare human and animal deaths
- we can also compare different human deaths
- he's not saying laws should be based on this!
_________________________
First four reasons why humans usually have a greater interest in living
1. greater quality of future days (p. 195)
 |
| HUMANS VS. ANIMALS (p. 195) |
- the pure joy of animals, p. 195-6 (McMahan's response?)
2. greater quantity of future days (p. 196)
- thoughts?
3. a good thing in a human life "has been and continues to be desired when it occurs" (p. 197)
- for animals, good things "tend to arrive unbidden and indeed unanticipated" (p. 197)
- humans: try to have children, want them when they arrive
- animals: just have offspring
4. good things in human lives can be deserved, which adds to the good (p. 197)
- deserving things "presupposes responsibility and animals are not responsible" (p. 197)
_________________________
Fifth & sixth reasons: human deaths can be interruptive
5. human deaths can be interruptive, leaving a project or narrative incomplete (p. 198-199)
 |
| HUMANS (p. 197) |
 |
| ANIMALS (p. 197) |
- animals don't have projects or narratives
- animal deaths never leave incompleness, aren't tragic
- any apparent animal projects (e.g. squirrels hoarding nuts)--just instinctive, no conscious goal
6. a human's death can retroactively affect the meaning of earlier activities (p. 197)
 | ||
HUMANS (p. 198)
|
 |
| ANIMALS (p. 198) |
_________________________
Two more reasons why humans usually have a greater interest in continuing to live
7. a human's lifespan can be short compared to peer lifespans (p. 198)
- these peer comparisons don't matter for animals
8. humans often care about the doings of their later selves because of "psychological continuity" (p. 198-199)
- animals dont have this sort of psychological continuity with their later selves
Possible debate topics
Do humans usually have a stronger interest in continuing to live than animals?
Are animal deaths ever tragic, leaving the animal's life incomplete?
Does McMahan paint an accurate picture of animal life and death?