Your browser does not support JavaScript!

Post-graduate theses

Current Record: 3 of 316

Back to Results Previous page
Next page
Add to Basket
[Add to Basket]
Identifier 000460368
Title Ηθική των ζώων : Peter Singer και Tom Regan
Alternative Title Animal Ethics : Peter Singer and Tom Regan
Author Ζωζωνάκης, Ευάγγελος-Ραφαήλ
Thesis advisor Σαργέντης Κωνσταντίνος
Reviewer Παπαδάκη Ευαγγελία
Κουκουζέλης Κωνσταντίνος
Abstract Peter Singer and Tom Regan, two prominent philosophers of the 20th and 21st centuries, have delved extensively into the field of animal ethics. While both philosophers advocate for the humane treatment of animals, they have significant differences in their moral perspectives. Both argue that animals should not be subjected to unnecessary suffering or harm, often pointing to practices they deem unethical, such as mass breeding of animals in factories or their use in experiments. Thus, Peter Singer and Tom Regan share the belief that animals should be treated with care, without inflicting torture or death. However, upon closer examination of their views on animal ethics and related issues, it becomes clear that their positions are shaped by distinct philosophical traditions. Peter Singer, an advocate of utilitarianism, argues that an action is morally justified when it maximizes overall happiness while minimizing pain. In the context of animal ethics, Singer emphasizes animals' capacity to experience pain and pleasure, underscoring the ethical imperative of taking this into account. A central argument in Singer's philosophy revolves around the concept of speciesism, which he defines as an unjustified preference for one's own species, akin to other forms of discrimination, such as racism and sexism. Singer posits that animals are capable of suffering, which necessitates treating them with the same concern and avoidance of harm as one would for humans. Singer's approach leads to the conclusion that it is morally imperative to minimize the suffering, pain, or torture inflicted on animals. This implies the cessation of practices like mindless breeding in factories, using animals in experiments, or involving them in entertainment media. Furthermore, Singer advocates for reducing or even eliminating meat consumption, promoting vegetarianism and veganism. In contrast to Peter Singer, Tom Regan's ethical framework is rooted in deontology. Regan argues that animals possess inherent value, which mandates treating them with respect and not using them as mere means to achieve human goals. According to Regan, animals have inherent rights, independent of their utility or capacity to serve human interests. They have the right to live without being exploited or killed by humans. Regan equates the inherent value of animals to that of humans, recognizing them as subjects of life. Unlike Singer, who argues that animals should not be harmed but can be used to some extent by humans, focusing on the avoidance of pain, Regan vehemently opposes any form of human exploitation of animals. He calls for the abolition of all practices that harm animals, such as mass breeding in farms or their use in experiments, emphasizing that animals should not be treated as property or commodities. Despite their differences, Singer and Regan share a common commitment to improving the treatment of animals. Both argue against subjecting animals to unnecessary suffering and harm and criticize practices that inflict pain or torture on animals, while advocating for significant changes in how society interacts with animals. In conclusion, the debate between Peter Singer and Tom Regan remains vibrant, offering diverse viewpoints and thought-provoking challenges. Although their views may differ fundamentally, both share a commitment to addressing the ethical treatment of animals and contribute significantly to the ongoing ethical discourse. The choice between these two philosophical approaches hinges on the emphasis placed on the consequences of actions (Singer) or inherent rights (Regan) when forming a moral judgment on animal ethics. The primary distinction between human and non-human animals lies in the latter's inability to engage in complex mental activities, take moral responsibility for their decisions and actions, and their origin from another species. This leads to the development of a speciesist mentality, as similar harmful treatment of humans would be deemed morally unacceptable. Arguments in favor of animal rights face challenges, as they link the existence of rights to corresponding obligations, which are primarily applicable in moral evaluation. Not all obligations are associated with rights, and obligations are inherently human, applying to beings capable of self-determination. Consequently, moral justification inevitably retains an anthropocentric perspective.
Language Greek
Subject Anthropocentrism
Deontology
Inherent Value
Interests
Moral Judgment
Pain
Speciesism
Subject of Life
Utilitarianism
Ανθρωποκεντρισμός
Δεοντοκρατία
Εγγενής Αξία
Ειδισμός
Ηθική Κρίση
Πόνος
Συμφέροντα
Υποκείμενα Μιας Ζωής
Ωφελιμισμός
Issue date 2023-11-01
Collection   School/Department--School of Philosophy--Department of Philosophy & Social Studies--Post-graduate theses
  Type of Work--Post-graduate theses
Permanent Link https://elocus.lib.uoc.gr//dlib/1/6/b/metadata-dlib-1699952788-715005-13846.tkl Bookmark and Share
Views 902

Digital Documents
No preview available

Download document
View document
Views : 4