Two empty worlds
Imagine two possible univers. Neither contains any human beings or other ntient creatures. One univer is extremely beautiful, the other very ugly. Which is better?
Moore argues that the first univer is much better. Suppo you are the last human. All other animals are extinct. You can arrange for a huge bomb to detonate at your death, leaving the world ugly. A utilitarian such as Sidgwick would find nothing wrong with this. Yet surely it is very wrong indeed.带西的成语
Some utilitarians simply reject Moore’s intuition. Others try to explain it away. Natural beauty is instrumentally valuable becau it gives people pleasure. Many naturally beautiful things are also in-strumentally uful in other ways. So we have a strong aversion to the gratuitous destruction of natural beauty. This aversion carries over to Moore’s artificial ca, even though the utilitarian rationale no longer applies.
The objective list theory fits nicely with Moore’s intuition. Indeed, it is hard to e how such a theory could survive without some independ-ent values. How can we say that an achievement contributes to well-being becau of its independent value if it has no independent value? The objective list theory thus produces an uneasy form of utilit-arianism. If we believe that all values must be ultimately reducibl
e to happiness, then the fact that it points beyond the consciousness of ntient beings is a strike against the objective list theory. On the other hand, if we want to admit both the value of happiness and the existence of values independent of humanity, then the objective list theory pro-vides a plausible bridge between the two.设计缺陷
Non-human animals
We finish our discussion of well-being by applying our three theories to non-human animals. If we are sure of our theory of well-being for humans, then we can extend it to non-human animals to discover how we should treat them. On the other hand, if we are more sure of our beliefs about the relationship between humans and non-humans, we can u tho beliefs to test our theories of well-being. For instance, if you are sure that animals and humans are not on a par, then you will reject any theory of well-being that cannot distinguish them.
90understanding utilitarianism
Suppo you are a hedonist. Human lives matter becau they con-tain pleasure and pain. Many non-human animals can enjoy pleasure and suffer pain. If human lives matter, then so should the lives of the animals. Instead of maximizing human happiness, utilitarians should maximize happin
ess per . Animals should count just as much as humans.
The practical conquences of the moral equivalence of humans and non-humans are both obvious and radical. Many human practices cau suffering to animals that is vastly out of proportion to any result-ing human pleasure. Humans need to eat and to enjoy themlves. But we could eat plants and play harmless games rather than killing animals for food and sport. It is no coincidence that one of the most influential figures in the animal liberation movement has been a utilitarian philosopher – Peter Singer.
Most utilitarians agree that the welfare of animals must count for something. However, not everyone places animals on a par with humans. A hedonist might argue that only humans can experience the higher pleasures. If a philosophy life is better than a pig life, and only humans can enjoy the philosophy life, then utilitarians should pay more attention to humans. Preference theorists can make a similar move. Although non-human animals have desires, perhaps human desires are more sophisticated and complex, and thus count for more. (This is not to deny that some preference theorists do reach radical conclusions regarding animal rights. Singer himlf, for instance, adopts a preference-bad account of well-being on which animal suffering is very bad becau animals have a strong aversion to pain.) The objective list theory can go even further, as many items on our list ma
其实并不难作文600字y be completely unavailable to non-human animals. (While pigs can prefer mud to concrete, they probably cannot autonomously pursue a life devoted to pushing back the boundaries of mathematical knowledge.)女人的美丽
If animal happiness differs from human happiness, then as well as counting animals less than humans, we may also be allowed to do some things to animals that we must not do to humans. To test our intui-tions, consider two cas.
The replicas
I have developed a machine that can painlessly kill a creature, and then
replace it with an almost exact replica. The only difference is that the replica is slightly happier than the original creature. I u the machine on Bob.
well-being91
The friendly farmer
Bob lives in a field on my farm. Bob has a very pleasant life and is unaware of his fate. One day, I painlessly and instantaneously kill Bob. His body is made into burgers.
In both cas, most people think I have behaved very badly if Bob is a human being. (We discuss the replicas tale further in Chapter 5, where we shall e that many of its opponents argue that utilitarianism sanctions this sort of treatment even in the ca of humans.) But do you feel the same if I tell you that Bob is a cow? What about a cockroach or a dog or a pig or a monkey or a dolphin or a Klingon? If your intuitions do differ, are you irrationally favouring your own species, or can your respons be given a good utilitarian justification?
Key points
•The three main theories of well-being are hedonism (happiness is pleasure), preference theory (happiness is getting what you want), and objective list theory (happiness is getting things that are independently valuable).于丹论语心得
•The key test for hedonism is Nozick’s experience machine. If you would not enter the machine, then you are not a hedonist.
包的英文•The key tests for preference theory are non-I desires, irrational desires, posthumous desires and the aggregation of desires.壁纸照片
•The key tests for the objective list theory are cultural relativism, paternalism, and whether list items are good for someone who does not want them.
推进的近义词是什么
•Another key test for any theory of well-being is whether it explains the value of animal well-being.
92understanding utilitarianism
