display all the ideas for this combination of philosophers
16 ideas
7587 | The issue of abortion seems insoluble, because there is nothing with which to compare it [Scruton] |
Full Idea: The issue of abortion is intractable, partly because of the absence of any other case to which it can be assimilated. | |
From: Roger Scruton (A Dictionary of Political Thought [1982], 'abortion') | |
A reaction: This is the legalistic approach to the problem, which always looks for precedents and comparisons. All problems must hav solutions, though (mustn't they?). The problem, though, is not the value of the foetus, but the unique form of 'ownership'. |
18554 | Prostitution is wrong because it hardens the soul, since soul and body are one [Scruton] |
Full Idea: The condemnation of prostitution was not just puritan bigotry; it was a recognition of a profound truth, that you and your body are not two things but one, and by selling the body you harden your soul. | |
From: Roger Scruton (Beauty: a very short introduction [2011], 7) | |
A reaction: No one, I imagine, who condones or even enthuses about prostitution would hope that their own daughter followed the profession, so there is something wrong with it. But must an enthusiastic and cheerful prostitute necessarily have a hard soul? |
4288 | Many breeds of animals have needs which our own ancestors planted in them [Scruton] |
Full Idea: Many breeds of animals have needs which our own ancestors planted in them. | |
From: Roger Scruton (Animal Rights and Wrongs [1996], p.75) | |
A reaction: He is talking about race horses and St Bernards. This doesn't avoid the moral dilemma, because we could race horses die out if we thought we had created a bad life for them. |
4291 | Letting your dog kill wild rats, and keeping rats for your dog to kill, are very different [Scruton] |
Full Idea: There is a difference between the person who allows his terrier to kill wild rats, and the person who keeps tame rats for his terrier to kill. | |
From: Roger Scruton (Animal Rights and Wrongs [1996], p.87) | |
A reaction: There are areas in the middle, where I encourage pheasants to breed 'wild' on my land. The purchase of a Rottweiller also tests the moral boundaries here. |
4295 | We favour our own animals over foreign ones because we see them as fellow citizens [Scruton] |
Full Idea: We don't give help to British animals (through the RSPCA) rather than foreign animals because of their nearness or needs, but because of our sense of them as fellow citizens. | |
From: Roger Scruton (Animal Rights and Wrongs [1996], p.104) | |
A reaction: A bit strong. It may, in fact, be because we look after them the way we look after the rest of our property. Even Kantians can be sentimental sometimes. |
4296 | Brutal animal sports are banned because they harm the personality of the watcher [Scruton] |
Full Idea: Dog-fights and bear-baiting are naturally forbidden by law, because they threaten the personality of those who attend them. | |
From: Roger Scruton (Animal Rights and Wrongs [1996], p.107) | |
A reaction: Hm. If this is so, it is mainly because it takes place in a closed pen, where we can get a close look at the brutality and blood. It could be said to be more honest than hunting with gun or hounds. 'Go on eyes, look your worst'. |
4268 | Animals command our sympathy and moral concern initially because of their intentionality [Scruton] |
Full Idea: It seems to me that the concept of intentionality introduces the first genuine claim of animals upon our sympathies and our moral concern. | |
From: Roger Scruton (Animal Rights and Wrongs [1996], p.16) | |
A reaction: Good. If one's approach to morality is Humean (via sympathy) this seems right. Utilitarianism bases animal rights on qualia (pleasures and pains). |
4263 | Many of the stranger forms of life (e.g. worms) interest us only as a species, not as individuals [Scruton] |
Full Idea: Most of the stranger forms of life (worms, fleas, locusts etc.) are not really suitors for our moral concern, and interest us primarily as species, and only rarely as individuals. | |
From: Roger Scruton (Animal Rights and Wrongs [1996], p.13) | |
A reaction: Interesting, but that seems to reflect on us, rather than cutting nature at the joints. As soon as you look closely, you recognise an individual rather than a member of a species. |
4279 | We can easily remove the risk of suffering from an animal's life, but we shouldn't do it [Scruton] |
Full Idea: It is easy to remove the risk of suffering from an animal's life, but the result is not a life which an animal should lead. | |
From: Roger Scruton (Animal Rights and Wrongs [1996], p.44) | |
A reaction: I'm not clear where the "should" derives from here. You can't save them all, and large interventions would destroy the ecosystem. But should we never, say, put a victim out of its misery? |
4276 | An animal has individuality if it is nameable, and advanced animals can respond to their name [Scruton] |
Full Idea: An animal has acquired individuality if the gift of a proper name seems appropriate, the high point being reached with animals such as dogs which actually respond to their own name. | |
From: Roger Scruton (Animal Rights and Wrongs [1996], p.39) | |
A reaction: Interesting, even though it is rather chauvinistic. I might name the fleas in my circus, but regard a whole section of the human race as indistinguishable and not worth naming. |
4277 | I may avoid stepping on a spider or flower, but fellow-feeling makes me protect a rabbit [Scruton] |
Full Idea: I instinctively recoil from stepping on a spider or a forget-me-knot in my path, but neither of these responses expresses the fellow-feeling that forbids me to step on a rabbit or a mouse. | |
From: Roger Scruton (Animal Rights and Wrongs [1996], p.41) | |
A reaction: It is fellow-feeling that makes us prefer mammals to reptiles. It seems wrong to build a moral system purely on empathy, because psychopaths don't even empathise with nice human beings. Externalism in morality. |
4278 | Lucky animals are eaten by large predators, the less lucky starve, and worst is death by small predators [Scruton] |
Full Idea: Lucky animals die in the jaws of a large predator; predators themselves are less lucky, when they die of lingering starvation; least fortunate are those killed by smaller creatures, such as maggots and bacteria. | |
From: Roger Scruton (Animal Rights and Wrongs [1996], p.43) | |
A reaction: A nice insight, even if it does slide into claiming that we are simply large predators, and that therefore fox-hunting is a virtue… |
4289 | Sheep and cattle live comfortable lives, and die an enviably easy death [Scruton] |
Full Idea: Sheep and beef cattle live a quiet and comfortable life among their companions, and are despatched in ways which human beings, if they are rational, must surely envy. | |
From: Roger Scruton (Animal Rights and Wrongs [1996], p.81) | |
A reaction: No rational person could envy a premature death, and we don't wait for cattle to be old before eating them. A quick death is little consolation for being murdered, and many people would prefer a slower death (without agony, of course). |
4292 | Concern for one animal may harm the species, if the individual is part of a bigger problem [Scruton] |
Full Idea: Too much concern for individual animals may in fact harm the species, by promoting diseased or degenerate members, or preventing population control. | |
From: Roger Scruton (Animal Rights and Wrongs [1996], p.87) | |
A reaction: Okay till we reach human beings, where this principle won't go away, even if further principles about personhood, rationality and deep sympathy enter the picture. We can't be utilitarian about animals, and something else about humans. |
4294 | Animals are outside the community of rights, but we still have duties towards them [Scruton] |
Full Idea: Animals exist outside the web of reciprocal rights and obligations, created by dialogue, but because they have no rights it does not mean that we have no duties towards them. | |
From: Roger Scruton (Animal Rights and Wrongs [1996], p.97) | |
A reaction: The modern Kantian view of animals, though Kant struggled to show why we might have any duties to animals. Is mere compassion enough to produce a duty, or is it a luxurious indulgence of our nature? |
4293 | Introducing a natural means of controlling animal population may not be very compassionate [Scruton] |
Full Idea: It is hard to believe that those who would introduce wolves as a means of controlling the deer population have much sympathy for deer. | |
From: Roger Scruton (Animal Rights and Wrongs [1996], p.91) | |
A reaction: Good point. If we assume that culling is required at all, then the decisive human actions which shock us on television may be nicer than the natural deaths that occur during the night. |