In this paper I argue that Liam Murphy’s collective consequentialism—emphasizing fairness instead of maximization of value—is not an adequate response to the demandingness objections levied at consequentialism. Especially since Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” many have objected that consequentialism is far too demanding, particularly concerning our obligations of assistance to those in extreme poverty. Murphy thinks that the problem is not that consequentialism is necessarily too demanding; it is that, in our nonideal world of partial compliance, consequentialism is too demanding on those who comply with its dictates. I hope to show that Murphy’s theory is unsatisfying. I will not defend any particular version of consequentialism over alternative consequentialist theories, nor will I defend consequentialism over alternative non-consequentialist moral theories. My aim is far narrower: To show that those who accept a broadly consequentialist account of morality have little reason to accept Murphy’s collective consequentialism.

No description available.

I denna uppsats för jag en diskussion om huruvida Peter Singers preferensutilitarism är en hållbar moralteori för djuretik. Detta utförs genom en undersökning av kritik som riktats mot Singers teori för att sedan granska om argumenten står på en legitim grund. Det finns två argument i fokus som presenteras av Josephine Donovan och som vi kommer att se indikerar de att Singers teori faktiskt har några besvärliga element som behöver modifieras. Jag hävdar att de besvärliga delarna kan lösas av utilitarismens komplexitet. I den sista delen av uppsatsen presenterar jag en möjlig hybridteori som inkluderar delar från både Donovans teori och aspekter från den indirekta utilitarismen. / In this essay I present a discussion regarding if Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism is a tenable moral theory for animal ethics. This is done through an examination of criticism directed at Singer's theory and then examining whether the arguments stand on a legitimate basis. There are two arguments in focus presented by Josephine Donovan and as we will see they will indicate that Singer's theory does in fact have some troublesome elements that needs modification. I argue that the troublesome elements may be solved by the complexity of utilitarianism. In the final part of the essay I present a possible hybrid theory that includes parts from both Donovan's theory and aspects from the indirect utilitarianism.

The international human rights instruments recognise the inherent dignity and inalienable rights of all members of the human family and that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person. The thesis explores the use of the phrase “inherent dignity” in the context of the catalogue of rights said to be derived from it. (For complete abstract open document)

Tesis para optar al grado de Magister en Filosofía mención en Axiología y Filosofía Política.

Begging has engaged many people in Sweden in recent years and the debate has been intense, not least in media. When relatively wealthy people in the welfare state Sweden meet beggars, ethical issues arise. Poverty comes close and becomes more apparent. This paper tries to provide guidance on how each person as an individual could approach various ethical issues that begging gives rise to. The starting point is the potential donor's and not the ethical issues that the beggar wrestles with. The essence of the essay is whether to give money to beggars or not and whether the begging should be banned or not. To highlight the issues, a number of articles have been analyzed that can be considered representative of the debate in Sweden. There are opinion makers in Sweden who argue for a begging bid and who consider that they should not give money to beggars and there are those who believe that a ban is unreasonable and emphasizes the begging as a symptom of a poverty problem that is not solved by prohibition legislation. The different arguments of these opinion makers are compared and analyzed based on a theological perspective where texts from two theologians, one philosopher and a narrative text from the gospels form the starting point. The theologians / philosophers whose ethical approach the essay presents are chosen based on the fact that their thinking is close and has a strong bearing on the essay's question. In his research, Peter Singer has raised poverty alleviation as his main theme, which concerns the issue about begging whose reason is just poverty. He is not a theologian but, in my opinion, enriches the theological perspective. K E Lögstrup is a theologian and, through his ethical theory of the absolute requirement, he can provide an interesting theological perspective on the issue of begging. I will also use narrative text from the Gospel of Luke to highlight the begging issue. Luke's gospel is the book of the New Testament, which most frequently addresses the issue of poverty and the obligations of the rich. Finally, Gustavo Gutiérrez will be treated as representative of liberation theology. The begging issue is much about the power perspective and there the liberation theology has been central in showing that the way we describe reality always assumes a specific context that contains a variety of values that are often assumed to be universal. Simply an analysis of the power perspective needs to be done to make an essay about begging relevant and Gutierrez has a lot to contribute. In this essay I have argued that you do not have a duty to give to all beggars. It is reasonable to make an assessment where the gift is most useful. There may be other purposes where poverty is more acute or apparent and that better needs my gift. It is also reasonable to make an assessment if the beggar is used for criminal activities such as trafficking or prostitution. There are no simple rules for how this should be done, but I mean that it is unethical to give to beggars completely arbitrarily before creating a relationship in order to make a assessment of the individual beggar's situation. That relationship can be created with a few who may be begging in one's neighborhood. At the same time, there is the absolute requirement to take care of our fellow man, who Lögstrup has developed. Over our principles rests an untold, silent requirement that we can not bargain with. The requirement is radical but can not be converted into a universal rule. It might be about giving or not giving money or doing something radically different or not doing anything at all. Every meeting with a beggar is a unique situation that must be judged by the individual at the moment. The requirement calls for listening to God's voice aimed at love and care about the person I meet.

Det blir alltmer vanligt med vegetarisk och vegansk kost i Sverige. Många väljer bort kött- och mejeriprodukter på grund av miljöaspekter men även för att främja djurens rättigheter. Mänskliga rättigheter är ett ämne som diskuteras bland annat i politiken, i skolan och på universiteten. Relationen mellan djurens rättigheter och mänskliga rättigheter diskuteras dock inte i lika hög grad, och hur vi ser den relationen varierarmellan olika personer. Jag tror att i princip ingen anser att andra arter än vi människor är moraliskt obetydliga men de allra flesta anser nog att vi människor är, i moralens ögon, viktigare. Hur relationen mellan människors och djurens rättigheterser ut har nog få funderat över i ingående detalj och med denna uppsats hoppas jag att vi kan få en tydligare bild av detta. / Vegetarian and vegan diets are becoming more common in Sweden. Many dismiss meat and dairy products due to environmental aspects and also in favor of animal rights. Human rights is a topic often discussed in politics, in school and at universities. The relationship between animal rights and human rights however are not discussed to the same extent, and how we envision that relationship varies greatly between different people. I believe that there are few who think that other species than humans are completely morally insignificant but the vast majority of people however probably believe that we humans are, in the eyes of morality, at least more important. I imagine there are few who have considered how the relationship between human and animal rights look in great detail and with this essay I hope that we can get a clearer picture of that relationship.

In his landmark work World Poverty and Human Rights, Thomas Pogge offers a novel approach to understanding the nature and extent of the obligations that citizens of wealthy states owe to their less fortunate counterparts in poor states. Pogge argues that the wealthy have weighty obligations to aid the global poor because the wealthy coercively impose institutions on the poor that leave their human rights, particularly their subsistence rights avoidably unfulfilled. Thus, Pogge claims that the wealthy states' obligations to the poor are ultimately generated by their negative duties, that is, their duties to refrain from harming. In this essay, I argue that Pogge cannot successfully appeal to negative duties in way that would appease his critics because his notion of a negative duty is seriously indeterminate, so much so as to compromise his ability to plausibly appeal to it.

Despite most educated people now accepting Darwinian explanations for human physical evolution, many of these same people remain reluctant to accept similar accounts of human behavioural or cognitive evolution. Leftists in particular often assume that our evolutionary history now has little bearing on modern human social behaviour, and that cultural processes have taken over from the biological imperatives at work elsewhere in nature. The leftist view of human nature still largely reflects that of Karl Marx, who believed that our nature is moulded solely by prevailing social and cultural conditions, and that, moreover, our nature can be completely changed by totally changing society. Ethical philosopher Peter Singer challenges this leftist view, arguing that the left must replace its non-Darwinian view of an infinitely malleable human nature with the more accurate scientific account now made possible by modern Darwinian evolutionary science. Darwinism, Singer suggests, could then be used as a source of new ideas and new approaches that could revive and revitalise the egalitarian left. This thesis defends and develops Singer’s arguments for a Darwinian left. It shows that much modern leftist opposition to evolutionary theory is misguided, and that Darwinism does not necessarily have the egregious political implications so often assumed by the egalitarian left – even in such controversial areas as possible ‘biological’ differences between the sexes or between different human populations.

Submitted by Maike Costa (maiksebas@gmail.com) on 2017-09-21T13:40:03Z No. of bitstreams: 1 arquivototal.pdf: 703315 bytes, checksum: 72da5d5040b94940e484819117e121d3 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-09-21T13:40:03Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 arquivototal.pdf: 703315 bytes, checksum: 72da5d5040b94940e484819117e121d3 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-12-14 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - CAPES / Das Ziel dieser Arbeit nimmt sich vor, eine Überlegenheit über den Moralstatus der nichtmenschlichen Tiere mit der Ethik von Peter Singer als Grundlage nachzudenken. Die Arbeit wird in vier Teilen geteilt: der Erste stellt das Problem der Forschung, die Motivation zu diesem Studium und einigen Aspekten der Westkultur, die uns zu einer Graumsamkeit ermuntern, dar. Das zweite Kapitel diskutiert den Moralstatus der nichtmenschlichen Tiere. Wir werden es sehen, wie die Tiere in der Geschichte als unvernünftig behandelt wurden. Von der religiösen christlich-jüdischen Tradition, sowie auch von der Westphilosophie, werden sie als Brauchbarkeitsgegenstand der Menschen erniedrigt. Wie Maschinen, die nicht fähig sind, Schmerz und Leid zu erfahren. Das dritte Kapitel befragt, ob die Vernunft, die Sprache, die Kultur oder die Kunst ausschließlich Fähigkeiten für den Menschen sind und ob solche Fähigkeiten genug sind, um die Ausbeutungen der nichtmenschlichen Tiere zu rechtfertigen. Das vierte Kapitel beschäftigt sich mit der utilitaristischen Ethik von Peter Singer, beziehungsweise mit seinem Versuch an einem gleichen Verhältiniss zwischen Menschen und nichtmenschenlichen Tieren. Dazu stellt Singer den Speziesismus an die gleiche Stufe des Rassismus und des Sexismus. Nach Singer bedeutet Speziesismus das Vorurteil, das nur auf die Identität der Speziegestützt wird. Singers Strategie ist der Speziesismus und das Prinzip der gleichen Interesseberücksichtigungen gegenüberzustellen, was uns ermöglicht, tiefer über unser Verhältniss mit den nichtmenschlichen Tieren nachzudenken. / Esta dissertação propõe uma reflexão acerca do status moral dos animais não humanos, com base na perspectiva ética do filósofo Peter Singer. O trabalho é dividido em quatro partes. A primeira apresenta o problema de pesquisa, as motivações do estudo e alguns aspectos da cultura ocidental que estimulariam a crueldade para com os animais não-humanos. O segundo capítulo discute o status moral dos animais não humanos. Veremos como historicamente eles foram tratados como irracionais. Inferiorizados pela tradição religiosa judaico-cristã e o pensamento filosófico ocidental, acabariam reduzidos à condição de objetos de utilidade do homem. Máquinas, incapazes de sentir dor e sofrimento. O terceiro capítulo, por sua vez, interroga se a razão, a linguagem, a cultura e a arte são características unicamente humanas, suficientes para justificar a exploração dos animais não humanos. O quarto capítulo se ocupa da ética utilitarista de Peter Singer, em especial da sua tentativa de estabelecer uma relação igualitária entre os animais humanos e não humanos. Para isso, coloca o especismo no mesmo patamar do racismo e do sexismo. De acordo com Singer, o especismo é o preconceito humano baseado na identidade enquanto espécie. Sua estratégia é a de contrapô-lo com o princípio da igual consideração dos interesses, o que possibilitaria redefinir nossa relação com os animais não humanos.