In this case, deontology is really a form of Consequentialism, by which moral actions depend only on their consequences. A similar argument applies, without significant revision, to the virtue of honesty.
You might do your duty for animals without regard for any pernicious consequences of your actions. This is not an unimportant task: Because of the way virtue ethics conceives of ethical thinking, it is difficult to see how one could defend a speciesist viewpoint in line with it.
All things being equal, I will return lost money not merely today, but on any day that I happen to find some. There are commercially available products that mimic human skin by creating sheets of human skin cells in vitro, which can produce more relevant results than animal testing Rogers.
Research can take several forms, but specifically field research and controlled experiments utilize animal subjects. I suspect that it is, but this is not required for the argument I am going to develop. Is it possible for animals — that are not human — to be morally virtuous.
Many animal rights advocates argue similarly—that just because we are human is not sufficient grounds to declare animals less morally significant.
Grace touches her gently and lifts her back to her feet.
A great resource describing some ways to minimize the use of animals in research and to practice the best standards when using animals. How is animal flourishing understood and promoted when animals are engineered for specific types of research. Do they support virtuous or immoral values.
Therefore you might claim that virtue ethics is not a basic ethical theory and is redundant. Therefore, it would be unwise to attribute to a person a virtue on the basis of observing their actions — even if these actions are consistent through time — if one does not know the reasons for these actions.
To have a moral virtue is, at the same time, to abhor the corresponding vice. Accordingly, potential animal rights violations are outweighed by the greater human benefits of animal research.
I do not consume meat including fish or dairy, wear leather or suede, or wear any product tested on an animal, such as makeups. He does not find it hard to show that the notion of humanity which this Kantian view encapsulates is far too narrow, hard to defend at any time, and increasingly so today.
Virtue ethics and the treatment of animals. The Case for Animal Rights is a book by the American philosopher Tom Regan, in which the author argues that at least some kinds of non-human animals have moral rights because they are the "subjects-of-a-life," and that these rights adhere to them whether or not they are recognized.
Ethics, Humans and Other Animals: An Introduction with Readings (Philosophy and the Human Situation) 1st Edition4/5(1). Virtue Ethics and Animals: A Minimally Decent Ethic for Practical Living in a Non-ideal World. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 27(6), pp.
Hursthouse, R. ().
Virtue ethics was first introduces by Plato and was further developed by Aristotle. Virtue ethics is based on the focus of characteristics, also known as virtues. This means the good character traits an individual has- and the opposite of a virtue (a vice) which are the negatives traits of an individual.
Rosalind Hursthouse Applying Virtue Ethics to Our Treatment of the Other Animals Applying virtue ethics to moral issues should be straightforward. The other two theories are consequentialism and virtue ethics.
Deontology opposes consequentialism by which only the outcome or consequence of your action is important.
Deontology appeals to an apparently objective source of duty for its authenticity.Report of virtue ethics and animals