Business Ethics Racism

Questions: 1.What is the difference between racism and speciesism, and do you agree that if you reject racism you must also reject speciesism? 2.What does the idea of equal consideration of interests mean? Explain using an example.3.Use an example to explain under what circumstances the balance of interests might favour the nonhuman. Are you comfortable with this possibility?4.Do you agree with Singers contention that Where our actions are likely to make (nonhumans) suffer, that suffering must count in our deliberations, and it should count equally with a like amount of suffering by human beings? Why?5.Do you agree with Singers contention that To avoid speciesism we must stop this practice (commercial meat production) and each of us has a moral obligation to cease supporting this practise? Why? Answers: 1. Racism refers to the structural abuse and oppression of the rights of other individuals based on not only race, but also based on religion and ethnicity. Racism is usually regarded as being egregiously morally wrong since race is actually a morally arbitrary characteristic on which to base the abuse or giving of rights. On the other hand, racism is different from speciesism in that speciesism refers to the systematic de-prioritization, ignorance, and disregard for the general interests of other species such as animals. According to Singer (Braun, 2008), it is argued that the treatment of animals in manners that human beings cannot be treated is indeed egregiously morally wrong. Singer further argues that the use of animals for research or for farming purposes leads to infliction of suffering which is unjustifiable on animals. Such kind of suffering, regardless of the benefit to be achieved, is actually morally unjustifiable. My position is that racism cannot be equated to speciesism and therefore by rejecting racism, one must not also reject speciesism. However, this does not necessarily imply that animals should not be treated with respect but instead animals should never have claim on the human species. However, the human population should only have a moral obligation of ensuring a reduction in animal suffering (Kagan, 2016). In essence, it can truly be asserted that racism is the structural abuse and oppression of rights that is based on race and is thus insipid since it actually infringes on the rights of rational actors in a moral society or community thus causing suffering and even reducing general happiness. It is not a must for people rejecting racism to reject speciesism because animals should never deserve the equal status accorded to human beings. This is because individuals of different races in the world cannot be distinct from each other through their average capabilities but instead, people are truly distinct from other animals in ways that are morally relevant. Speciesism occurs to an extent that human beings can ignore animals interests, but however, they can never have rights thus speciesism is not actually as bad as racism is. 2. The idea of Equal Consideration of interests means that for any entity which has interests, then such interests should be regarded as being morally vital with the similar interests that belong to another entity (Firestone, 2016). For instance, if you one has to deliver electric shocks to two strangers namely John and Amos. The electric shock will actually lead to an equal amount of pain in each and every affected individual. According to Singers principle, both John and Amos interests of not feeling the pain must be equally given consideration and therefore one should not take precedence over the other one. As a result, it does not necessarily matter morally to whom the shock is delivered. On the other way, one will need to make a decision as to whom to first deliver the shock, may be through using flipping of coins. The Equal Consideration of Interests also implies that the pain which an animal feels actually matters as much as when such pain is felt by humans especially if such pain hurts as much (Khazaal Almiron, 2016). This thus means that how bad the suffering and the pain are does not entirely depend on a species which experiences such pain and therefore in case there is a moral conflict, then one should consider both the human and animal interests on an equal basis. 3. There are various circumstances under which the balance of interests may genuinely favor the non-humans. For instance, bestowing of the moral benefits such as rights on animals that are aimed at protecting them from exploitation by the human population is a good example of how the balancing of interests can benefit non-humans (Garner, 2016). Apart from that, obeying of the rights which animals have such as the right of animals not to be abused by individuals and respecting such rights is also an example of how balancing of interests can greatly benefit non-humans such as animals (Grant, 2016). In addition to that, human beings should not exploit animals but instead, they should support the rights of animals even though not all animals in the world have similar rights. According to me, am comfortable with this possibility because even though we can use animals for our own benefits, it is important to ensure that we also respect their rights. 4. I dont agree with Singers assertion that in circumstances where human actions make the non-humans to suffer, then such suffering should also be equated to the suffering experienced by human beings. This is because human beings are superior to animals and therefore there is no way that animals can be equated to the animals (Strang, 2016). When God created the world, humans were given the mandate over everything in the world and thus animals and other non-humans are also under the control of the human race. 5. I cannot agree with Singers contention because the idea that speciesism is actually intrinsically linked or associated to the idea that animals and humans possess the same moral value is wrong. Despite the fact that animals and humans belong to the same animal species, this should not be construed to imply that the same moral value should be assigned to all the animal species, human beings included (Leech, 2016). This implies that the idea of speciesism is truly unavoidable. There is thus no way that the issue of commercial meat production can stop. Works Cited Braun, B., 2008. Environmental issues: inventive life. Progress in Human Geography, 32(5), pp.667-679. Firestone, R.S., 2016. Aliens, Humans, Animals, Luck: Animal Treatment Human Morality. Open Journal of Philosophy, 6(03), p.265. Garner, R., 2016. Animal rights and the deliberative turn in democratic theory. European Journal of Political Theory, p.1474885116630937. Grant, R.M., 2016. Contemporary strategy analysis: Text and cases edition. John Wiley Sons. Kagan, S., 2016. What's Wrong with Speciesism?(Society of Applied Philosophy Annual Lecture 2015). Journal of Applied Philosophy, 33(1), pp.1-21. Khazaal, N. and Almiron, N., 2016. An Angry Cow is Not a Good Eating Experience How US and Spanish media are shifting from crude to camouflaged speciesism in concealing nonhuman perspectives. Journalism Studies, 17(3), pp.374-391. Leech, G.N., 2016. Principles of pragmatics. Routledge. Strang, V., 2016. Inconvenient truths and reconciliation in humannon-human relations. Routledge Handbook of Environmental Anthropology.