Examples Of A Moderate Deontology

I am a weak pluralist who believes in a weak autonomy of religion and I am a moderate deontologist. As someone who holds a weak autonomy of reason I do not believe people need to follow a religion to determine how to live morally or what violates objective moral standards but that people can make these distinctions through reason. As a moderate deontologist I believe that anything that violates the categorical imperative or goes against the respect and dignity of life would logically also violate objective moral standards and calls for the pluralist belief of standing up to evil. For an example of the application of my moral identification I will argue my stance that invasive experiments on sentient animals is morally unjustified. I will

In defense of this position philosopher Tom Regan has argued that sentience should be the basis by which rights endowed (The Rights…). He argues that there are many humans who lack the ability to reason but still maintain their human rights, therefore our standards for rights are not based on reason but sentience which includes these humans and animals as well. Regan also states “Inherent value, then, belongs equally to those who are the experiencing subjects of a life,” supporting the claim that animal lives have value on their own (The Case for Animal Rights). The antithesis of this non-moral belief is that since animal do not have the capacity for reason they do not have rights and are only valuable in the ways in which they are useful to humans. Carl Cohen supports this view and says “Rights arise, and can be intelligibly defended, only among beings who actually do, or can, make moral claims against one another.” (The Case for…) Cohen argues that since animals are not moral agents they have no moral rights. He also argues against Regan that humans without the ability to reason are still included in having rights because they are not the

By teleological and utilitarian principles the amount of pain felt by these animals makes the use of them in experiments immoral as their pain is not outweighed by the potential benefit reaper from these experiments. In this argument Peter Singer argues “The benefits to humans are either non-existent or very uncertain; while the losses to members of other species are certain and real. Hence the experiments indicate a failure to give equal consideration to the interests of all beings, irrespective of species.” (Equality for Animals?) Singer’s point in this quote is clear; the suffering of these animals for the mere possibility of human benefit is morally wrong. The opposing belief, that there is due proportion between human life and animal life with the higher value being on the former and therefore the greater good is served through animal experimentation. Those who believe this position argue that because testing products on animals can help avert human suffering it is justifiable since they also believe human life has priority. Cohen in his essay defending animal experiments said “Untold numbers of human beings - real persons, although not now identifiable - would suffer grievously as the consequences of this well-meaning but shortsighted tenderness.” In this quote Cohen takes the stance that the greater good is best served in